Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Neverfox View Post
    I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. What bob b is really asking about is the theory of abiogenesis.
    Actually what I asked was:

    "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?"

    If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?
    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


    • #92
      Originally posted by bob b View Post
      Actually what I asked was:

      "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?"

      If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?
      What about those whales Doogie keeps bringing up? There's great evidence for the change from land mammals to sea-dwelling ones. Pretty compelling evidence, actually.
      "Those who have crossed
      With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
      Remember us--if at all--not as lost
      Violent souls, but only
      As the hollow men
      The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

      Comment


      • #93
        Bob b,

        Can you imagine any evidence which would satisfy you? What would that look like? Suppose evolution were true, what would we find? (Please bear in mind the limits of modern techniques).
        “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by bob b View Post
          Actually what I asked was:

          "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?"

          If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?
          I would personally like to keep the starting point as an unknown until such a time as it becomes known.
          Abiogenesis has a certian logic to it, but logic alone doesn't prove much of anything.
          I personally have no problem with accepting that evolutionary theory does not explain ultimate origins and that abiogenesis is only one of many possibilities.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Real Sorceror View Post
            Abiogenesis has a certian logic to it, but logic alone doesn't prove much of anything.
            What logic do you think it has?


            Evo

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Evoken View Post
              What logic do you think it has?


              Evo
              The fact that at some point there was life on this world when previously there had been none.
              "Those who have crossed
              With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
              Remember us--if at all--not as lost
              Violent souls, but only
              As the hollow men
              The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                You'll believe just about line if it confirms your previously held beliefs. The nature of the sample was indeterminate and the samples were likely contaminated. Both labs confirm this, and this has not been taken seriously in years. Stay with the times. They have newer, better bull-puckey out there now.
                This is just too good. First you assume that I believe this to be gospel truth, when all I did was post the link to see how you'd respond to creationists using C-14 testing. Second, you automatically believe it to be wrong because it doesn't confirm your previously held beliefs. Third, isn't it strange that every time a radiometric date doesnt confirm the evolution story it's almost always due to contamination? Or is because scientists who believe in creation are just that biased and dishonest as to purposely get phony lab results?

                Maybe you could provide a link to a site debunking this? Even if this particular example is questionable, C-14 found in coal is a fact like it or not. So either there's some major worldwide contamination going on (which would debunk your statement I replied to), or it's not nearly as old as you assume it to be.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by audioseizure View Post
                  Originally posted by bob b
                  I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.
                  how about the simple fact that most people resemble their parents? while it may not be the best evidence, i think it's certainly noteworthy.
                  "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
                  -George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I think microevolution is scientific and observable in nature, but it seems that macroevolution is more of a shot in the dark.
                    sigpic

                    The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

                    Larry Hardiman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jehu View Post
                      This is just too good. First you assume that I believe this to be gospel truth, when all I did was post the link to see how you'd respond to creationists using C-14 testing. Second, you automatically believe it to be wrong because it doesn't confirm your previously held beliefs. Third, isn't it strange that every time a radiometric date doesnt confirm the evolution story it's almost always due to contamination? Or is because scientists who believe in creation are just that biased and dishonest as to purposely get phony lab results?
                      1. Yeah- I do assume that since you bothered to post it, you believed. Call me Mr. Trusting, but I just don't see the ponit in linking to things I think are baloney.
                      2. Not my previously held beliefs- the evidence thus far. So far C-14 has been proven to be incredibly reliable and yet you think that there is one anomoly the whole system is faulty?
                      3. No, I don't think its strange at all. Samples don't come from the ground in neatly seperated, hermetically sealed envelopes. Paranoia much?
                      Maybe you could provide a link to a site debunking this? Even if this particular example is questionable, C-14 found in coal is a fact like it or not. So either there's some major worldwide contamination going on (which would debunk your statement I replied to), or it's not nearly as old as you assume it to be.
                      OK- here's a quick one.
                      http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html
                      Here's one on coal.
                      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
                      "Those who have crossed
                      With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                      Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                      Violent souls, but only
                      As the hollow men
                      The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                        I think microevolution is scientific and observable in nature, but it seems that macroevolution is more of a shot in the dark.
                        I suppose it should be easy for you to define what "micro" and "macro" evolution are then? If your answer involves the word "kind", then please define what that means as well.

                        You may want to answer the following age old question - if a tree falls in the middle of a forest with no one around, does it make a sound? If you answer yes, is that "macro" acoustics?
                        "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                        "The best things in life aren't things"

                        Comment


                        • So here we have a thread that asked for the best evidence for evolution (descent from a single common ancestor) and what do we get?

                          One feeble attempt which wanted us to think that the theory is true because people generally resemble their parents.

                          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


                          • Originally posted by bob b View Post
                            So here we have a thread that asked for the best evidence for evolution (descent from a single common ancestor) and what do we get?

                            One feeble attempt which wanted us to think that the theory is true because people generally resemble their parents.

                            Because your original question is in and of itself nonsense. It's like looking at the Colliseum and asking which brick in particular is most important. Evolution is a confluence of ideas about life and its history, not an equation. Just pick any animal and examine its relationship to the creatures from it which it is descended. Take a tour of the fossil record- stop by the DNA gift shop- it isn't just one fact that leads to people realizing that the theory of evolution offers the best explaination. It's all of them.
                            "Those who have crossed
                            With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                            Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                            Violent souls, but only
                            As the hollow men
                            The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                              Because your original question is in and of itself nonsense. It's like looking at the Colliseum and asking which brick in particular is most important. Evolution is a confluence of ideas about life and its history, not an equation. Just pick any animal and examine its relationship to the creatures from it which it is descended. Take a tour of the fossil record- stop by the DNA gift shop- it isn't just one fact that leads to people realizing that the theory of evolution offers the best explaination. It's all of them.
                              Typical.

                              Tons of evidence but none that comes to mind.

                              When Eugenie Scott debated Bob Enyart essentially this was the same result. All she seemed to want to talk about was that the Bible was a joke.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                1. Yeah- I do assume that since you bothered to post it, you believed. Call me Mr. Trusting, but I just don't see the ponit in linking to things I think are baloney.
                                Believe it or not I try to be skeptical of all studies that have an "interpretation" component to them because everyone has a worldview that can shape their conclusions. I just happened to remember reading this once and found a link to it.

                                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                2. Not my previously held beliefs- the evidence thus far. So far C-14 has been proven to be incredibly reliable and yet you think that there is one anomoly the whole system is faulty?
                                No, but recorded history only goes back a few thousand years. That would be the extent of proving C-14 reliable.

                                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                3. No, I don't think its strange at all. Samples don't come from the ground in neatly seperated, hermetically sealed envelopes. Paranoia much?
                                But you'll accept the radiometric dates that agree with an evolutionary time-scale as being without contamination? Ok...

                                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                Judging by the articles his website, this guy strikes me as an atheist with a beef against Christians. Not exactly a more credible source of information than PhD scientists at AiG.

                                Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                                I've read this one and all it does is provide hypothetical situations that might produce C-14, not actual evidence that it has been happening for ~300 million years. But might-haves, could-haves, and maybes pass for valid explanations in the realm of evolutionary history.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X