Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific proof for evolution

Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:13:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
READ BEFORE POSTING

Ok I know this is a punt, but Im begging you guys to post scientific theories to proving or disproving evolution, NOT post biblical quotes or such. I'm trusting you guys! If you don't believe in evolution, then post your reasons why, but back it with scientific evidence, and the same goes to evolution believers.

This subject has been posted many times, But has often been polluted by subject changes, religious intervention (nothing wrong with that, but It would be great if that didn't happen this time around).

So this is an experiment to see if the subject can stay in line with the original post, and to see what are your theories disproving and proving evolution

Cheers guys/gals

Ill start with one bit of interesting evidence ive recently come across:

The vagus nerve, or the laryngeal nerve

The laryngeal nerve is the branch of the vagus nerve that travels from the brain to the larynx.

Rather than going directly for all of 50 mm or so, it needlessly travels all the way down to the heart, loops round the aorta, and then comes all the way back up to the larynx. This is more pronounced in a giraffe than any other living animal, of course (the giraffes long neck).

This is illogical 'bad design' and in my opinion is the result of historical legacy: in the earliest vertebrates, the nerve was taking the most direct route, but once necks evolved the nerve found itself in the middle of a complex vascular junction, and had to remain tangled with the aorta even when the aorta and the brain became widely separated.

It defies the idea of a creator, because its completely illogical, it shows the imperfection of evolution. Ok its not THE strongest case for evolution, but I think its pretty air tight evidence.

What other evidence to you guys/gals know?
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And DAMN it! I posted in religion not science! Big mistake. Just pretend this is in the science section, really sorry about this.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:25:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:15:33 PM, Nik wrote:
And DAMN it! I posted in religion not science! Big mistake. Just pretend this is in the science section, really sorry about this.

I was about to point that.

I don't have a fixed view on evolution. I'm critical of both sides on this debate.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:46:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anti evolution:

-irreducible complexity
Um . . . that's about it.

Pro evolution:
-fossil record
-heredity
-observed speciation
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:32:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:46:20 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Anti evolution:
-irreducible complexity

Faulty logic.

Um . . . that's about it.

More:
Mutations that are only slightly beneficial will not kill off the rest of the species, which was thriving without it.

For example, if a family of gold fish were to have a slightly bigger mouth than others, and this mutation had little to no effect on their ability to last long enough to reproduce, one wouldn't expect all of the gold fish to develop this trait, perhaps even within millions of years.

Pro evolution:
-fossil record

Too many missing links.

-heredity

How does this affirm anything?

-observed speciation

We have observed speciation in the sense that we see different species, but we have not observed species actually speciate.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:33:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This may be a weak point, I am paraphrasing a Jehovahs witness scientist.

Evolution requires that random occurence of positive mutations.

For several decades scientists have attempted to produce positive mutations through the use of radiation on fruit flies. This has never produced a single positive mutation, mutant fruit flies are invariably weaker. Mutations are also of limited scope, suggesting that a species only 'evolves' to allow for a few limited variations, thus macro evolution is impossible.

Another point.

The horseshoe crab, has remained virtually unchanged for 500 million years. This in itself does not disprove evolution. If the horse shoe crab has remained unchanged it is possible that it has simply found it's niche. However it is not physically seperated from other 'niches' therefore 500 million years of evolutionary pressure MUST have produced 'innumerable' variations and off shoots, otherwise evolution is surely false.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:42:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Some other quirks about evolution:

If breeding is what determines whether or not two organisms are of the same species, then wouldn't that mean that in later evolutionary organisms, two organisms of opposite gender would have had to have mutated in the exact same way at similar times and not very far from each other, and find each other among all other organisms? That in itself implies that some other factor must have been at hand.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:46:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
One would also assume that after so many billions of years, more than one species of intelligent life would form on Earth. Or at least something close to ours.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:49:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is also curious as to how there is only one species currently alive of the genus Homo, although there were supposedly many.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:55:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:49:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
It is also curious as to how there is only one species currently alive of the genus Homo, although there were supposedly many.

And this supposistion is based on faulty evidence, it is now admitted that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal could walk down a city street without batting an eye lid. It could be argued that there only ever was homo sapiens, modern man.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:56:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:49:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
It is also curious as to how there is only one species currently alive of the genus Homo, although there were supposedly many.

You'd think that they wouldn't all die out, that some of them would live to this day.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:58:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:49:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
It is also curious as to how there is only one species currently alive of the genus Homo, although there were supposedly many.

A bit racist but some low key, very controversial scientists believe black, white and asian humans to be technically different species. Due to their belief in their different abilities Intellectually, and socially.

I don't agree with this but perhaps there is some degree of truth in it.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:02:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:13:30 PM, Nik wrote:

If you don't believe in evolution, then post your reasons why, but back it with scientific evidence. . . .

Why would a religious person even attempt this? It defeats the whole purpose of faith.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:04:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:02:42 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:13:30 PM, Nik wrote:
If you don't believe in evolution, then post your reasons why, but back it with scientific evidence. . . .

Why would a religious person even attempt this? It defeats the whole purpose of faith.

Well, that was a brilliant generalization, seeing as a number of religious people, myself included, have been giving reasonable reasons as to why evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:10:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A few athiests do not believe in evolution.

Granted, I have no idea what they do believe in, but it would be nice to know what they do believe in.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:30:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:04:35 PM, mongeese wrote:

Well, that was a brilliant generalization, seeing as a number of religious people, myself included, have been giving reasonable reasons as to why evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be.

1.) Thank you for the compliment.

2.) It's probably not as brilliant as your non-answer to my question, though.

3.) You didn't refute my point that doing so would defeat the purpose of faith, which suggests that you accept my statement as fact.

4.) The most brilliant thing of all is to presume that subjectivity is objectivity.

5.) Just because you and others, or just one person, or no one else has attempted it---doesn't refute my point. I asked why; you gave no because, unless it was this:

Me: Why would religious people even try this?

You: Because we have tried it.

And that really isn't too reasonable.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:37:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:30:54 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/12/2009 4:04:35 PM, mongeese wrote:

Well, that was a brilliant generalization, seeing as a number of religious people, myself included, have been giving reasonable reasons as to why evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be.

1.) Thank you for the compliment.

2.) It's probably not as brilliant as your non-answer to my question, though.

3.) You didn't refute my point that doing so would defeat the purpose of faith, which suggests that you accept my statement as fact.

4.) The most brilliant thing of all is to presume that subjectivity is objectivity.

5.) Just because you and others, or just one person, or no one else has attempted it---doesn't refute my point. I asked why; you gave no because, unless it was this:

Me: Why would religious people even try this?

You: Because we have tried it.

And that really isn't too reasonable.

How about you be respectful to the person who started this thread and remain on topic. If you believe you are saying something of worth, make a new thread and see if anybody joins you.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:40:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:37:12 PM, InquireTruth wrote:

How about you be respectful to the person who started this thread and remain on topic. If you believe you are saying something of worth, make a new thread and see if anybody joins you.

1.) I have.

2.) I have.

3.) Take your own advice.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:39:56 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
That sounded unintentionally harsh. Sorry.

Ah, this addendum post wasn't up when I was typing my prior response.

I'll stand by my words (on their face); but no offense taken, and none intended.

Bygones!
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:45:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As for you, PitBull, I'll just quote Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Faith does not require an absence of science.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 4:51:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:45:54 PM, mongeese wrote:

Faith does not require an absence of science.

You must be referring to another PitBull then, because I neither said nor implied such an allegation.

I believe that religious people can make great contributions to science, as they have since time began; all I'm saying is that trying to "prove" religious doctrine through standards never intended for it seems circular and against its own purpose.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:08:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But you said that religious people should not use science against evolution, and that faith should be enough to disprove evolution, although that would be, as Einstein put it, "blind."
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:10:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 5:08:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
But you said that religious people should not use science against evolution, and that faith should be enough to disprove evolution, although that would be, as Einstein put it, "blind."

I'm not going to lie: I don't know how you derived that (above) from anything I've said.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:12:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 4:02:42 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:13:30 PM, Nik wrote:

If you don't believe in evolution, then post your reasons why, but back it with scientific evidence. . . .

Why would a religious person even attempt this? It defeats the whole purpose of faith.

You asked why a religious person would even use science, which clearly contradicts Einstein.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:16:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 5:12:25 PM, mongeese wrote:

You asked why a religious person would even use science, which clearly contradicts Einstein.

No, I asked why a religious person would attempt to "prove" religious doctrine (in opposition to evolution) by scientific, empirical, logical standards.

I hope this clarifies my posts for you.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:46:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:46:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
One would also assume that after so many billions of years, more than one species of intelligent life would form on Earth. Or at least something close to ours.

Never heard of whales? Great apes? Etc.? They're pretty close, in language, social complexity, even tool/environment usage.

No other species have attained our level as of yet because we've by far been the most adaptable, and have actually lived in one of the more stable climate periods yet.

There is always speculation though that rudimentary intelligence has existed before us, but nothing that necessarily lived long enough due to climate and adaptability. For instance, smart lizards - reptillians if you will - are thought to *possibly* have existed, but due to the fact they're cold blooded, and the mass extinctions that existed back then... you see where I'm going.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 5:48:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You asked why a religious person would even use science, which clearly contradicts Einstein.

Ai ya, stop quoting Einstein - he wasn't even religious.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 7:23:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
SOOOO....Any other theories to prove religion?......ugh I mean evolution.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"