Total Posts:232|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do you know Evolution is true?

Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

I choose to believe in the evidence rather than believe in an antiscienctific hypothesis.

Creationism cannot explain why the twin nested hierarchy exists. There is no reason to create it, and an omniscient being should certainly have realized that it would mislead intellectuals into believing that all life is derived from a single ancestor, or else they wouldn't be omniscient.

It is ridiculous to believe your god did this, but it is exactly what evolution predicts.

If we are this god's chosen species, why did it take over 3.5 billion years to create us? Why did this "benevolent" being create and then allow, or even make, millions of other species go extinct only to replace them with new species, over a 3.5 billion year period, before finally getting around to making us? Why do we exist on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed to a mind-boggling degree by the rest of the universe?

I find it amazing that christians, such as yourself, choose to believe in a book and say that every other religion is wrong. You have no more proof for beliefs than any other religion... And more people are of the Islamic faith, at that.

The truth is that you are only christian as a result of the circumstances of your birth.

As for the evidence, we have the twin nested hierarchy, we have examples of observable evolution, we have examples of forms which are clearly intermediary between two groups, and we have only one, overarching, universal theory from which testable hypotheses can be derived... And so much more.

Whereas you are a member of a faction within an entire category of groups, arguing that you are the only religion that knows the truth. You choose to disbelieve in all religions except for one, I simply choose to disbelieve one more religion than you.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:22:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:15:46 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

I choose to believe in the evidence rather than believe in an antiscienctific hypothesis.

Creationism cannot explain why the twin nested hierarchy exists. There is no reason to create it, and an omniscient being should certainly have realized that it would mislead intellectuals into believing that all life is derived from a single ancestor, or else they wouldn't be omniscient.

It is ridiculous to believe your god did this, but it is exactly what evolution predicts.

If we are this god's chosen species, why did it take over 3.5 billion years to create us? Why did this "benevolent" being create and then allow, or even make, millions of other species go extinct only to replace them with new species, over a 3.5 billion year period, before finally getting around to making us? Why do we exist on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed to a mind-boggling degree by the rest of the universe?


I find it amazing that christians, such as yourself, choose to believe in a book and say that every other religion is wrong. You have no more proof for beliefs than any other religion... And more people are of the Islamic faith, at that.

The truth is that you are only christian as a result of the circumstances of your birth.

As for the evidence, we have the twin nested hierarchy, we have examples of observable evolution, we have examples of forms which are clearly intermediary between two groups, and we have only one, overarching, universal theory from which testable hypotheses can be derived... And so much more.

Whereas you are a member of a faction within an entire category of groups, arguing that you are the only religion that knows the truth. You choose to disbelieve in all religions except for one, I simply choose to disbelieve one more religion than you.

So why is evolution true? You just claimed it is true, but didn't give a reason.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:22:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:15:46 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

I choose to believe in the evidence rather than believe in an antiscienctific hypothesis.

Creationism cannot explain why the twin nested hierarchy exists. There is no reason to create it, and an omniscient being should certainly have realized that it would mislead intellectuals into believing that all life is derived from a single ancestor, or else they wouldn't be omniscient.

It is ridiculous to believe your god did this, but it is exactly what evolution predicts.

If we are this god's chosen species, why did it take over 3.5 billion years to create us? Why did this "benevolent" being create and then allow, or even make, millions of other species go extinct only to replace them with new species, over a 3.5 billion year period, before finally getting around to making us? Why do we exist on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed to a mind-boggling degree by the rest of the universe?


I find it amazing that christians, such as yourself, choose to believe in a book and say that every other religion is wrong. You have no more proof for beliefs than any other religion... And more people are of the Islamic faith, at that.

The truth is that you are only christian as a result of the circumstances of your birth.

As for the evidence, we have the twin nested hierarchy, we have examples of observable evolution, we have examples of forms which are clearly intermediary between two groups, and we have only one, overarching, universal theory from which testable hypotheses can be derived... And so much more.

Whereas you are a member of a faction within an entire category of groups, arguing that you are the only religion that knows the truth. You choose to disbelieve in all religions except for one, I simply choose to disbelieve one more religion than you.

So why is evolution true? You just claimed it is true, but didn't give a reason.

The twin nested hierarchy is the reason I gave.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:25:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:24:00 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:22:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:15:46 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

I choose to believe in the evidence rather than believe in an antiscienctific hypothesis.

Creationism cannot explain why the twin nested hierarchy exists. There is no reason to create it, and an omniscient being should certainly have realized that it would mislead intellectuals into believing that all life is derived from a single ancestor, or else they wouldn't be omniscient.

It is ridiculous to believe your god did this, but it is exactly what evolution predicts.

If we are this god's chosen species, why did it take over 3.5 billion years to create us? Why did this "benevolent" being create and then allow, or even make, millions of other species go extinct only to replace them with new species, over a 3.5 billion year period, before finally getting around to making us? Why do we exist on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed to a mind-boggling degree by the rest of the universe?


I find it amazing that christians, such as yourself, choose to believe in a book and say that every other religion is wrong. You have no more proof for beliefs than any other religion... And more people are of the Islamic faith, at that.

The truth is that you are only christian as a result of the circumstances of your birth.

As for the evidence, we have the twin nested hierarchy, we have examples of observable evolution, we have examples of forms which are clearly intermediary between two groups, and we have only one, overarching, universal theory from which testable hypotheses can be derived... And so much more.

Whereas you are a member of a faction within an entire category of groups, arguing that you are the only religion that knows the truth. You choose to disbelieve in all religions except for one, I simply choose to disbelieve one more religion than you.

So why is evolution true? You just claimed it is true, but didn't give a reason.

The twin nested hierarchy is the reason I gave.

Could you explain what that is?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:33:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:25:52 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:24:00 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:22:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:15:46 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

I choose to believe in the evidence rather than believe in an antiscienctific hypothesis.

Creationism cannot explain why the twin nested hierarchy exists. There is no reason to create it, and an omniscient being should certainly have realized that it would mislead intellectuals into believing that all life is derived from a single ancestor, or else they wouldn't be omniscient.

It is ridiculous to believe your god did this, but it is exactly what evolution predicts.

If we are this god's chosen species, why did it take over 3.5 billion years to create us? Why did this "benevolent" being create and then allow, or even make, millions of other species go extinct only to replace them with new species, over a 3.5 billion year period, before finally getting around to making us? Why do we exist on a tiny little planet which is dwarfed to a mind-boggling degree by the rest of the universe?


I find it amazing that christians, such as yourself, choose to believe in a book and say that every other religion is wrong. You have no more proof for beliefs than any other religion... And more people are of the Islamic faith, at that.

The truth is that you are only christian as a result of the circumstances of your birth.

As for the evidence, we have the twin nested hierarchy, we have examples of observable evolution, we have examples of forms which are clearly intermediary between two groups, and we have only one, overarching, universal theory from which testable hypotheses can be derived... And so much more.

Whereas you are a member of a faction within an entire category of groups, arguing that you are the only religion that knows the truth. You choose to disbelieve in all religions except for one, I simply choose to disbelieve one more religion than you.

So why is evolution true? You just claimed it is true, but didn't give a reason.

The twin nested hierarchy is the reason I gave.

Could you explain what that is?

There are two hierarchies of life: one based on morphology, and one based on genetics. The two match up remarkably well, hence being called "twin" hierarchies.

If all animal species were created irrespective of one another, there's no reason to do this, and as I pointed out earlier, an omniscient being should certainly realize that it would mislead western scientists.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 3:57:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?

Based on everything I've just said. It stands to reason that animals with more similar morphology, ie their lineages having experienced a more recent split, will be more similar in terms of their genetics.

That's what evolution asserts, and all the evidence bears it out.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:04:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

How about this one:
-life arising from non life has never been observed, therefore life only comes from life
-if life only comes from life, then modern species necessarily come from ancient/fossil species
-fossil species must in turn come from more ancient species. Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

I believe this argument is impossible to debunk :) although it will be clear for abiogenesis advocates that the universal common ancestor must have special characteristics that allow it to arise from non-life.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 3:57:52 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?

Based on everything I've just said. It stands to reason that animals with more similar morphology, ie their lineages having experienced a more recent split, will be more similar in terms of their genetics.

That's what evolution asserts, and all the evidence bears it out.

So how does that prove evolution? I don't understand. We see animals and there DNA. But I don't see how the similarities prove evolution
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:04:24 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

How about this one:
-life arising from non life has never been observed, therefore life only comes from life
-if life only comes from life, then modern species necessarily come from ancient/fossil species
-fossil species must in turn come from more ancient species. Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

I believe this argument is impossible to debunk :) although it will be clear for abiogenesis advocates that the universal common ancestor must have special characteristics that allow it to arise from non-life.

So how does that prove evolution? And how do you know life evolves?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:17:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

That doesn't follow at all. There's no reason why modern species can't have different origins. If they do have a common ancestor (as seems likely) it's probably because one lineage out-competed the others. But it's possible we might yet find a critter that is really 'left-field' in a hydothermal vent or something. But it wouldn't make any difference to evolutionary theory.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:08:09 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:57:52 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?

Based on everything I've just said. It stands to reason that animals with more similar morphology, ie their lineages having experienced a more recent split, will be more similar in terms of their genetics.

That's what evolution asserts, and all the evidence bears it out.

So how does that prove evolution? I don't understand. We see animals and there DNA. But I don't see how the similarities prove evolution

As I said, all the evidence seems to point toward evolution. I think I made a convincing case, and I don't know how much more convincing I could have been... So maybe someone else can come in and give it a shot.

So I'm not going to try to convince you in that manner anymore. Rather, I'm going to turn it around. How do you explain these phenomena?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:25:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Have you ever taken a class in biology? Or spoken to a bio teacher?

We have great confidence in evolution for many reasons. It explains speciation, genetic diversity, natural selection is observable in nature. We have fossils that prove creatures existed millions of years ago that don't exist today and we have no evidence of modern species living millions of years ago. Obviously we could only be the decendents of these ancient creatures we find. It is the foundation of biology. You literally can not understand biology w/o understanding evolution. Our understanding of evolution has allowed us to understand of how the HIV resists drugs. Evolution is not an abstract idea, it has real world implications and predictive power. And most importantly it's observable in small scales.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:23:15 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:08:09 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:57:52 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?

Based on everything I've just said. It stands to reason that animals with more similar morphology, ie their lineages having experienced a more recent split, will be more similar in terms of their genetics.

That's what evolution asserts, and all the evidence bears it out.

So how does that prove evolution? I don't understand. We see animals and there DNA. But I don't see how the similarities prove evolution

As I said, all the evidence seems to point toward evolution. I think I made a convincing case, and I don't know how much more convincing I could have been... So maybe someone else can come in and give it a shot.

So I'm not going to try to convince you in that manner anymore. Rather, I'm going to turn it around. How do you explain these phenomena?

But the information you gave doesn't seem to prove evolution.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:25:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Have you ever taken a class in biology? Or spoken to a bio teacher?

We have great confidence in evolution for many reasons. It explains speciation, genetic diversity, natural selection is observable in nature. We have fossils that prove creatures existed millions of years ago that don't exist today and we have no evidence of modern species living millions of years ago. Obviously we could only be the decendents of these ancient creatures we find. It is the foundation of biology. You literally can not understand biology w/o understanding evolution. Our understanding of evolution has allowed us to understand of how the HIV resists drugs. Evolution is not an abstract idea, it has real world implications and predictive power. And most importantly it's observable in small scales.

How do you know the earth is millions of years old?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:34:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:29:56 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:23:15 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:08:09 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:57:52 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:48:50 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:43:30 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 3:35:51 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
How does this prove evolution?

Because it demonstrates common descent.

If birds are not derived from non-avian dinosauria, why are there HUNDREDS of observable synapomorphies which are not present in any other group of animals, AND why is it that, based on what DNA has been recovered of non-avian dinosaurs, they are also more closely related by genetics than to any other extant group of animals?

Why are humans more closely related, in terms of morphology and genetics, to apes than to horses? To horses than to birds? To birds than to fish?

How does that prove evolution? How do you derive the idea of "Common ancestor" from "somewhat similar DNA"?

Based on everything I've just said. It stands to reason that animals with more similar morphology, ie their lineages having experienced a more recent split, will be more similar in terms of their genetics.

That's what evolution asserts, and all the evidence bears it out.

So how does that prove evolution? I don't understand. We see animals and there DNA. But I don't see how the similarities prove evolution

As I said, all the evidence seems to point toward evolution. I think I made a convincing case, and I don't know how much more convincing I could have been... So maybe someone else can come in and give it a shot.

So I'm not going to try to convince you in that manner anymore. Rather, I'm going to turn it around. How do you explain these phenomena?

But the information you gave doesn't seem to prove evolution.

I disagree. I can see no other compelling explanation for these various phenomena, and just about every western scientist agrees with me.

And so again I ask, how do you explain any of this?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 4:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:31:01 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:25:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Have you ever taken a class in biology? Or spoken to a bio teacher?

We have great confidence in evolution for many reasons. It explains speciation, genetic diversity, natural selection is observable in nature. We have fossils that prove creatures existed millions of years ago that don't exist today and we have no evidence of modern species living millions of years ago. Obviously we could only be the decendents of these ancient creatures we find. It is the foundation of biology. You literally can not understand biology w/o understanding evolution. Our understanding of evolution has allowed us to understand of how the HIV resists drugs. Evolution is not an abstract idea, it has real world implications and predictive power. And most importantly it's observable in small scales.

How do you know the earth is millions of years old?

The earth is billions of years old. Roughly 4.6 iirc. And the answer to that is carbon dating and observing rock layer formations. Ask a geologist.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The prologue ends at the 6:20 mark (this can be skipped).

Part 1 is titled
"How Science ACTUALLY Operates"
This starts at the 6:20 mark.

Part 2 is titled
"Observable & Testable Evidence for Evolution"
This starts at the 16:00 mark.

Part 3 is titled
"All "Kinds" of BS"
This starts at the 25:00 mark.

Have fun!
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Because scientists in multiple fields who are educated in their fields have researched, explored and debated the subject have come to the conclusion that is.

People who are against it, by and large, have little to no scientific knowledge. Those few who do have scientific credentials, allow their strongly held religious beliefs to overcome their scientific views.
Think
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:28:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Alpha, evolution can be described as the study of the history of species change -- including the mechanisms and triggers for these changes, and their impacts on species. Part of it is fact (like speciation mechanisms); part of it is inferential theory (like the links between species) that is nevertheless well supported by data from disparate disciplines, and in the sciences, considered beyond dispute -- much like the existence of gravity is beyond dispute.

To get a basic grasp of speciation mechanisms and their supporting evidence takes about a morning. But it takes much longer to understand the history of evolution in biological science, the contending theories, the methodologies used to gather and interpret evidence and evaluate competing theories, the key evidence causing rival theories to be discarded, the key predictions of current evolutionary theories and how they were substantiated, how the mechanisms became fleshed out, how evolution contributed to an improved understanding of species and their taxa, and how evolutionary theory is now used, how exposed it is to falsification, how heavily reviewed it is every day by expertise from all around the world, how diligently challenged it is, and nevertheless how robust it is.

In other words, while it's easy to see how the mechanisms were observed, it's much harder to make an informed evaluation of how robust the theory is. Virtually all the strident critics of evolutionary biology are non-scientists, and most are either theologians, philosophers or armchair amateurs.

Often, they don't fully understand scientific principles, fail to understand or accept data for speciation mechanisms, and haven't a clue how to evaluate the robustness of any scientific theory. So what's sometimes called a 'controversy' is just an assembly of loud, ignorant people loudly proclaiming ignorance, coordinated for political effect.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 1:37:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:17:09 PM, kp98 wrote:
Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

If they do have a common ancestor (as seems likely) it's probably because one lineage out-competed the others. But it's possible we might yet find a critter that is really 'left-field' in a hydothermal vent or something. But it wouldn't make any difference to evolutionary theory.

Exactly, KP.

After centuries of diligent investigation, there's presently no reason to think that all the species on earth don't have a common ancestor, and some strong reasons associated with how long life spent in very simple forms, to think that they probably did.

But we still haven't mapped all species on earth or established all links, and if (say) abiogenesis occurred independently more than once, that would hurt evolution not at all -- though it might offer some remarkable insights into early life, and open some fascinating new questions about species competition.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 4:08:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:11:26 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:04:24 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

How about this one:
-life arising from non life has never been observed, therefore life only comes from life
-if life only comes from life, then modern species necessarily come from ancient/fossil species
-fossil species must in turn come from more ancient species. Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

I believe this argument is impossible to debunk :) although it will be clear for abiogenesis advocates that the universal common ancestor must have special characteristics that allow it to arise from non-life.

So how does that prove evolution? And how do you know life evolves?

Well, if modern species come from ancient species, this means species shifted from their ancient morphology to their current morphology, and thus evolved.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:16:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 1:28:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Alpha, evolution can be described as the study of the history of species change -- including the mechanisms and triggers for these changes, and their impacts on species. Part of it is fact (like speciation mechanisms); part of it is inferential theory (like the links between species) that is nevertheless well supported by data from disparate disciplines, and in the sciences, considered beyond dispute -- much like the existence of gravity is beyond dispute.

To get a basic grasp of speciation mechanisms and their supporting evidence takes about a morning. But it takes much longer to understand the history of evolution in biological science, the contending theories, the methodologies used to gather and interpret evidence and evaluate competing theories, the key evidence causing rival theories to be discarded, the key predictions of current evolutionary theories and how they were substantiated, how the mechanisms became fleshed out, how evolution contributed to an improved understanding of species and their taxa, and how evolutionary theory is now used, how exposed it is to falsification, how heavily reviewed it is every day by expertise from all around the world, how diligently challenged it is, and nevertheless how robust it is.

In other words, while it's easy to see how the mechanisms were observed, it's much harder to make an informed evaluation of how robust the theory is. Virtually all the strident critics of evolutionary biology are non-scientists, and most are either theologians, philosophers or armchair amateurs.

Often, they don't fully understand scientific principles, fail to understand or accept data for speciation mechanisms, and haven't a clue how to evaluate the robustness of any scientific theory. So what's sometimes called a 'controversy' is just an assembly of loud, ignorant people loudly proclaiming ignorance, coordinated for political effect.

So how do you know evolution is true?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 4:40:44 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:31:01 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:25:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Have you ever taken a class in biology? Or spoken to a bio teacher?

We have great confidence in evolution for many reasons. It explains speciation, genetic diversity, natural selection is observable in nature. We have fossils that prove creatures existed millions of years ago that don't exist today and we have no evidence of modern species living millions of years ago. Obviously we could only be the decendents of these ancient creatures we find. It is the foundation of biology. You literally can not understand biology w/o understanding evolution. Our understanding of evolution has allowed us to understand of how the HIV resists drugs. Evolution is not an abstract idea, it has real world implications and predictive power. And most importantly it's observable in small scales.

How do you know the earth is millions of years old?

The earth is billions of years old. Roughly 4.6 iirc. And the answer to that is carbon dating and observing rock layer formations. Ask a geologist.

What about dating methods and rock layer formations that disagree?
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:18:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 4:08:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:11:26 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/1/2015 4:04:24 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

How about this one:
-life arising from non life has never been observed, therefore life only comes from life
-if life only comes from life, then modern species necessarily come from ancient/fossil species
-fossil species must in turn come from more ancient species. Therefore it follows logicaly that all species on earth must have a single origin: universal common ancestor.

I believe this argument is impossible to debunk :) although it will be clear for abiogenesis advocates that the universal common ancestor must have special characteristics that allow it to arise from non-life.

So how does that prove evolution? And how do you know life evolves?

Well, if modern species come from ancient species, this means species shifted from their ancient morphology to their current morphology, and thus evolved.

How do you know this?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 12:16:17 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:28:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Evolution can be described as the study of the history of species change -- including the mechanisms and triggers for these changes, and their impacts on species. Part of it is fact (like speciation mechanisms); part of it is inferential theory (like the links between species) that is nevertheless well supported by data from disparate disciplines, and in the sciences, considered beyond dispute -- much like the existence of gravity is beyond dispute.
So how do you know evolution is true?

Speciation mechanisms are observed, reported and independently reviewed; speciation itself has been both observed and induced; and predicted heredity relationships between linked species are independently confirmed using multiple sources of evidence.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2015 12:22:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/2/2015 12:16:17 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/2/2015 1:28:01 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/1/2015 2:45:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I keep on hearing that it is a fact and everything, but how do people know this? How do you know its true?

Evolution can be described as the study of the history of species change -- including the mechanisms and triggers for these changes, and their impacts on species. Part of it is fact (like speciation mechanisms); part of it is inferential theory (like the links between species) that is nevertheless well supported by data from disparate disciplines, and in the sciences, considered beyond dispute -- much like the existence of gravity is beyond dispute.
So how do you know evolution is true?

Speciation mechanisms are observed, reported and independently reviewed; speciation itself has been both observed and induced; and predicted heredity relationships between linked species are independently confirmed using multiple sources of evidence.

Yes, we observe speciation. But how does that prove evolution?