Best Evidence for Evolution.

[mighty_duck]

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?

 

[bob b]

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.

:grave:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

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.

:grave:

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.

 

[bob b]

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.

 

[Jehu]

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.

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.

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...

OK- here's a quick one.
http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html

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.

Here's one on coal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html

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.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

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.

Why did you bother if you didn't think it was factual?

No, but recorded history only goes back a few thousand years. That would be the extent of proving C-14 reliable.

So what? Only things that are written down are known or true? Rubbish.

But you'll accept the radiometric dates that agree with an evolutionary time-scale as being without contamination? Ok...

You don't get it, do you? It's not like the wicked atheistic white coats do C-14 dating and they get all kinds of wild results all the time, and occasionally manage to get the "right" results and they just disregard the rest. It's a refined, consistent system and when there are anomalies they are just that.

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.

Oh, of course not- after all, he disagrees with you! How can smart can he be? He is not your target, grasshopper. Just the facts.

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.

It's called scientific honesty. Short of rewinding history and watching it play out, what would constitute "evidence" in your opinion?

 

[DoogieTalons]

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.

That's an understandable technique give the frustrations of dealing with YEC's.

IF you treat your Bible as a Science book I believe it is a joke so you end up with Young Earth Creationsim.

It does not matter how many Behehe's come along datamining science looking for ways Genesis could be true. Your beloved Bible basically is where you boil it all down to.

And you are disproving Evolution for one Goal and one goal only to "Prove Genesis" You have NO OTHER AGENDA BUT TO INSTALL GOD IN THE GAPS.

If you have ANY OTHER FINAL CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN THE TWO BELOW PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.

Intelligent design = Christian God is the Designer.
Creationism = Christian God is the Creator.

It's not even accepting the possiblity Zeus or Thor did it.

That's it when you read through all the flim flam and IR nonsense and that parody of knowledge website called rather tellingly "Answers in Genesis" you come back to the above statements and the truth is bob b that's all you have Genesis.

The first two books don't even agree with each other without even more flim flam and with it you try to refute Biology and Astronomy, no wonder its a giggle. All research and all truth seeking would just stop if you had all the answer...

That has gone so far beyond such darkage ignorance that young earth creationism IS seen my MOST scientists, and indeed the majority of human beings as a joke, only not a funny one ... one about death that don't quite hit the mark. You know when someone makes a joke about a dead relative and they really are dead, that sort of thing.

 

[bob b]

It amazes me that evolutionists claim they have tons of evidence for evolution (descent from a single primitive lifeform) but when you ask them to give their best evidence they are strangely quiet and try to change the subject.

This thread is ample proof of that.

 

[Hank]

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.

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.

If nothing changes that would change the procedure, then backwards extrapolation is not only scientific, but logical.

The Big Bang theory is not a part of biological evolution but there is nothing absurd about it.

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.

That’s why it’s not science, because it’s a belief that is not supported by evidence.

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.

You say this all the time, but I doubt you ever accepted biological evolution.

 

[Evoken]

And you are disproving Evolution for one Goal and one goal only to "Prove Genesis"

If someone shows that evolution is false, the motive of the person is irrelevant. It doesn't matters if the goal was to "Prove Genesis", what matters is that evolution was shown to be false.


Evo

 

[bob b]

If nothing changes that would change the procedure, then backwards extrapolation is not only scientific, but logical.

I think you meant to say that if nothing changes in the assumed variables that extrapolation is scientific. But making that assumption without good evidence that it is valid is not scientific.

The Big Bang theory is not a part of biological evolution but there is nothing absurd about it.

I would think that any reasonable person not dogmatically attached to the idea that there is no God would conclude that unlimited backwards extrapolation of an expansion leads to nothing (pun intended).

That’s why it’s not science, because it’s a belief that is not supported by evidence.

Science by its very nature is powerless to say anything authoritative about ultimate beginnings.

You say this all the time [Bob once accepted evolution], but I doubt you ever accepted biological evolution.

People here call me a liar all the time without any proof. You seem to be hinting at this.

Your doubt about my past indicates to me that you have a closed mind on the subject of common descent from a single primitive ancestor. And further you may have compartmentalicized your mental state by not being that curious about how that primitive ancestor could possibly have arisen naturally (the complaint we hear all the time: "evolution does not include abiogenesis") :think:

 

[DoogieTalons]

It amazes me that evolutionists claim they have tons of evidence for evolution (descent from a single primitive lifeform) but when you ask them to give their best evidence they are strangely quiet and try to change the subject.

This thread is ample proof of that.

Look you made no attempt at all to answer my questions regarding the whale. So I gave your post equal measure.

Disproving evolution is not going to happen, things evolve, the whale wasn't "Designed a Whale" the evidence FACTUAL PURE EVIDENCE THE VERY EXISTANCE OF THE WHALE AND THE BIOLOGICAL FACTS ABOUT IT'S EVOLUTION. PROVE EVOLUTION.

Evolution of the whale took a long time and no matter which way you cut it it took longer than 6000 years. THERE IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD.

SO Evolution is fact, you cannot deny it without looking stupid now what are we really getting at ?

Abiogenesis ? Life from Non Life... ? In trying to disprove evolution you can never push religion because scientific facts are not in genesis and they never were.

6000 years ? it's just daft it sounds daft saying it, the Dog has been domesticated twice as long as that, we have been using arrow heads five times longer than that.

 

[bob b]

Look you made no attempt at all to answer my questions regarding the whale. So I gave your post equal measure.

Disproving evolution is not going to happen, things evolve, the whale wasn't "Designed a Whale" the evidence FACTUAL PURE EVIDENCE THE VERY EXISTANCE OF THE WHALE AND THE BIOLOGICAL FACTS ABOUT IT'S EVOLUTION. PROVE EVOLUTION.

Evolution of the whale took a long time and no matter which way you cut it it took longer than 6000 years. THERE IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL RECORD.

SO Evolution is fact, you cannot deny it without looking stupid now what are we really getting at ?

Abiogenesis ? Life from Non Life... ? In trying to disprove evolution you can never push religion because scientific facts are not in genesis and they never were.

6000 years ? it's just daft it sounds daft saying it, the Dog has been domesticated twice as long as that, we have been using arrow heads five times longer than that.

OK, so now we have two offerings of "scientific evidence" to support the idea that all life has descended from a single primitive cell:

1) people sometimes resemble their parents, and

2) there are 4 or 5 fossils that have been found that some people claim indicate that modern day whales evolved over millions of years from a four-footed land animal roughly resembling a modern day fox.

 

[SUTG]

OK, so now we have two offerings of "scientific evidence" to support the idea that all life has descended from a single primitive cell:

1) people sometimes resemble their parents, and

2) there are 4 or 5 fossils that have been found that some people claim indicate that modern day whales evolved over millions of years from a four-footed land animal roughly resembling a modern day fox.

So, for those of you keeping score at home:

Theory of Evolution: 2
Young Earth Creationism: 0

 

[baloney]

The creationists claim that mutations don't add to genetic info is a bunch of baloney.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

 

[Neverfox]

Sorry I've taken so long to reply. I'm busy with my upcoming wedding this weekend so I'm swamped.

My big concern with this thread is the framing of the argument. It seems that it's setup to require the "atheist" side to believe in abiogenesis as the end all of theories and that if it has problems, then they must immediately admit that creationism is the truth. I think this points out a key difference in theists and atheists when discussing the origins of life or other difficult to prove events or concepts. Theists are compelled to believe one story for the most part and it's a matter of black and white. When scientific theories are mentioned by atheists, theists will try to treat them in the same way. But theories are never intended to be truth unerring. They are developed to be a good explanation that is most useful in helping scientists put other work into context and provide a consistent framework for thought. They often change or are updated or proven to be flat out wrong. But in no case does a change like this mean that the whole baby is thrown out with the bath water. We don't see new discovery that changes or invalidates a theory as being the death of science. The theory of gravitation of Newton vs. Einstein is a great example. In other words, any argument that implies that a problem with a scientific theory = theism is right is putting everyone into the wrong frame.

In general, I don't feel a personal attachment to abiogenesis as a theory and strange as this may sound to theists, this doesn't make me an instant creationist. That's because one can envision hundreds of alternative possibilities to the start of life and scientists everyday are working hard to test these ideas. This diversity of thought is most encouraging and makes life exciting.

I hope I'm being clear as to my concerns. If I'm not, I'll try to come around again when things slow down for me.

 

[baloney]

Being of the Jewish faith, this distortion of Genesis being portrayed here is laughable. It is metaphorical language folks and the numbers such as 7 days is metaphorically significant to us not literally. Our whole language is based on a number system.

I ca't wait until you guys open that 26 million dollar Garden of Eden in Kentuckey. Will you have unicorns too? Remember the Irish Rovers? Sure, the unicorns were there as well!

 

[Evoken]

It is metaphorical language folks and the numbers such as 7 days is metaphorically significant to us not literally.

How?

 

[Evoken]

So, for those of you keeping score at home:

Theory of Evolution: 2
Young Earth Creationism: 0

Strange, from where I stand evolution has two strikes now.


Evo

 

[Yorzhik]

So, for those of you keeping score at home:

Theory of Evolution: 2
Young Earth Creationism: 0

You're not being sarcastic?