Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for evolution?

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 8:47:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution wouldn't be considered a theory and fact if there weren't.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 1:21:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

This is not how scientists arrive at conclusions. We do not invent theories first and then look for evidence. It is the other way around. First we gather evidence then we ask what theory best explains the evidence. So to me it is natural to look at the evidence and ask "which explains this best, evolution or creation?". Overwhelmingly I find evolution gives the best fit.

However if we attempt your question we have to say that the evidence for evolution is not 100% conclusive. Then people leap in and say that we are admitting evolution cannot be proved. This is more akin to the process of law not science.

The evidence to be considered is well known: fossil record, radiometric dating,genetics, categorization studies, extinction studies, comparative anatomy etc. If you can show me how this evidence can be explained better by a theory other than evolution, ie engage in the scientific process, then I would be most interested in your ideas.

For example:

The fossil record shows that on millions of separate occasions new species have come into existence and most have since become extinct. What is a good explanation of that?

If we organise species in chronological order we find that the primordial species are all single celled and remained so for 2 billion years or more. Why?

Why are marsupials only found on one continent?

Why are all organisms so well adapted to their habitat despite the fact that habitats have changed constantly?

Why is the anatomy of a whale very similar to land mammals?

Why are there so many extinct species of primitive humans?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce, and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

If you have a problem with any single piece of the evidence you know exists, feel free to raise it here and I'm sure one of any number of people here will walk you through the particular line of evidence, how it ties in with other lines of evidence in a single universal narrative in which all evidence thus far discovered completely conforms, and I'm sure if you approach asking the question in Good faith, people will reply in kind.

However, I get the feeling that given your current level of exposure to both the internet, and the evidence on this forum; I suspect one of the following are true:

1.) You are not interested in what the evidence actually is, and simply want the evidence to be listed here so you can snipe at it with the same way "Holy Trinity" of arguments that others who don't believe in Evolution: straw-men, equivocation and circular reasoning , all using ignorant examples that demonstrates a considered lack of understanding of the concepts they are arguing against.

2.) You do not understand what the evidence is, or have not had enough exposure to it to connect the dots and construct and understand the evolutionary biological narrative for yourself and as such it does not make sense to you; combined with the Anti-Evolutionary non-scientific arguments that you have read are confusing the issue for you.

Only one of these options is really an honest one worthy of a reply, and assuming you are not making this post as a rhetorical attempt to bait someone here to reply, as such it would be useful to know what aspect of Biological Evolution you are having problems with.

I will also add, that Evolution is the fruition of 250 years of research, involving innumerable scientists; has survived the invention of multiple independent fields of science that all have the ability to prove it wrong, and has been tested, investigated with studies that have been scrutinized by other scientists. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientifically controlled studies, and papers that have established many of the mechanisms, properties and pathways by which evolution has occurred, and provided detailed explanations, and uncovered exceptional evidence both from the macro to molecular level that all consistently demonstrates how the structure and make up of everything that lives today fits only in with the narrative of evolution and common descent.

Given also that everyone contributing to this field has to be trained and educated in that specific field for generally at least 7 full time years in higher education including but not limited to a degree, and most often a PhD, and given that every single one of the studies is reviewed by several other individuals that not only have had equivalent training, but will generally have had years if not decades of additional experience in testing and evaluating the science involved in that field.

Given also, that science rewards new discovery and the overturning of scientific orthodoxy, with almost every single household name in science from Hawking to Einstein, to Darwin, to Schroedinger, being responsible in some way for contributing to the overturning of existing scientific orthodoxy...

How is it that only a set of Christians with little or no training in any field of Biology, who can be shown to consistently lie, distort, misrepresent, equivocate and cherry pick all the evidence; who consistently state that there is no evidence that could ever be uncovered that will change their mind, and approach the subject already believing that Evolution cannot be true; are the only ones who have realized that Evolution is wrong?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:56:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

I laughed, because that was funny, and while I agree that people should avail themselves of the resources available to them, I don't see the likelihood that you're going to get this other person to agree with you as very high, in this case.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 8:12:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Denying evolution is denying basic biology. When cells divide by meiosis, genetic information often transcripts incorrectly, causing differences in the genotype of the two different cells. This is a mutation. Meiosis is the form of cell division experienced during sexual reproduction. Mutations have been observed. Let's move on to organisms. When organisms reproduce sexually, the daughter organism has differences in the phenotype from the parent organism, as result of mutations. Hereditary traits that pass on keep gaining changes in relation to the genotype's interaction with the environment, causing some mutations -- biased mutations -- to be favored over others. These biased mutations are "selected" for or against. The mutations that change cause changes in the phenotype, while biased mutations maintain -- or progress -- hereditary traits. Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing. The mutations that are selected are in a process called selection.

Constant genetic mutations and selection cause evolution, since these act as the primary mechanisms for evolution. Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Speciation has been observed. There are multiple examples of observed speciation, e.g. the evening primrose. [http://www.talkorigins.org...]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:00:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Zero evidence. Everything you need to know about, well, EVERYTHING, is in this book http://ak.picdn.net...

Is there "evolution" mentioned there in any way? Hinted maybe? No? Then it's no more than atheist propaganda.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:15:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution as in things change? Yes
Evolution as in particles to people evolution? No conclusive evidence has been given that doesn't depend on logical fallacies and irrelevant data. If there was, I would be all for it.
I love science and cosmology and geology. But evolution just isn't good, supportable science.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:16:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 1:15:21 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution as in things change? Yes
Evolution as in particles to people evolution? No conclusive evidence has been given that doesn't depend on logical fallacies and irrelevant data. If there was, I would be all for it.
I love science and cosmology and geology. But evolution just isn't good, supportable science.

See my post above..
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 1:19:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 1:16:08 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/28/2015 1:15:21 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution as in things change? Yes
Evolution as in particles to people evolution? No conclusive evidence has been given that doesn't depend on logical fallacies and irrelevant data. If there was, I would be all for it.
I love science and cosmology and geology. But evolution just isn't good, supportable science.

See my post above..

True
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 10:23:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 1:21:30 PM, chui wrote:

Why are marsupials only found on one continent?

Three continents.
334 species total
234 in Australia, etc.
86 in South America
13 in Central America
1 in North America
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Why is the anatomy of a whale very similar to land mammals?

Because they share a common ancestor with hippos.

Why are there so many extinct species of primitive humans?

I ate them.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:09:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 1:21:30 PM, chui wrote:

This is not how scientists arrive at conclusions. We do not invent theories first and then look for evidence. It is the other way around. First we gather evidence then we ask what theory best explains the evidence. So to me it is natural to look at the evidence and ask "which explains this best, evolution or creation?". Overwhelmingly I find evolution gives the best fit.

However if we attempt your question we have to say that the evidence for evolution is not 100% conclusive. Then people leap in and say that we are admitting evolution cannot be proved. This is more akin to the process of law not science.

The evidence to be considered is well known: fossil record, radiometric dating,genetics, categorization studies, extinction studies, comparative anatomy etc. If you can show me how this evidence can be explained better by a theory other than evolution, ie engage in the scientific process, then I would be most interested in your ideas.

Here is an alternative explanation to evolution: intelligent design.

For example:

The fossil record shows that on millions of separate occasions new species have come into existence and most have since become extinct. What is a good explanation of that?

The intelligent designers killed off previous creations to make room for new creations.

If we organise species in chronological order we find that the primordial species are all single celled and remained so for 2 billion years or more. Why?

The intelligent designers started off creating simple life, and as they got better at creating life, they gradually became able to create more complex life. Their progression in creating life is similar to how human technology "evolved" over time as humans got better at creating technology.

Why are marsupials only found on one continent?

They aren't.

Why are all organisms so well adapted to their habitat despite the fact that habitats have changed constantly?

A combination of the intelligent designers being smart enough to design creatures to be able to thrive in a specific area, the ability for creatures to relocate when their habitat becomes less suitable for them, and micro-evolution (a change of allele frequencies without new information being added to the gene pool, for those who don't understand that micro evolution is different from macro evolution)

Why is the anatomy of a whale very similar to land mammals?

They share a common creator.

Why are there so many extinct species of primitive humans?

That question doesn't make sense; there is only one species of humans, which is homo sapien, and they are not extinct.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce,

But we haven't "seen" nature produce species. It's only speculated that nature can do this.

and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.


It's not complex - it's mutation and selection. Two notes produced Beethoven's 5th. "Well-evidenced"? Well, that's the question of this thread, isn't it? I don't think you establish "well-evidenced" merely by claiming it's so. And "insightful" - ? Well, let's just substitute "most imaginative" and we can agree on something.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.


The problem is, the high school account IS sufficient. Like I say, two notes, that's the whole of evolutionary theory. You can use more words to describe the two notes, but nothing has been added to Darwin's hypothesis, it has only been elaborated on. I guess I should point out that evolution has attempted to incorporate Mendel, i.e. genetics, but the ID camp correctly points out that selecting from pre-existing information is a whole different ballgame from proposing the spontaneous emergence of information in the first place. So evolution proposes that imprecise copies are made during reproduction and the variants that survive better survive. That's all there is to the theory.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.

Well, you can't stop every intelligent person from using his own God-given brain. Many have tried through the ages, but man has the spark of the divine in him. You may shut my mouth by intimidation, but you can't stop by mind from seeing what it sees.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:20:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce,

But we haven't "seen" nature produce species. It's only speculated that nature can do this.

and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.


It's not complex - it's mutation and selection. Two notes produced Beethoven's 5th. "Well-evidenced"? Well, that's the question of this thread, isn't it? I don't think you establish "well-evidenced" merely by claiming it's so. And "insightful" - ? Well, let's just substitute "most imaginative" and we can agree on something.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.


The problem is, the high school account IS sufficient. Like I say, two notes, that's the whole of evolutionary theory. You can use more words to describe the two notes, but nothing has been added to Darwin's hypothesis, it has only been elaborated on. I guess I should point out that evolution has attempted to incorporate Mendel, i.e. genetics, but the ID camp correctly points out that selecting from pre-existing information is a whole different ballgame from proposing the spontaneous emergence of information in the first place. So evolution proposes that imprecise copies are made during reproduction and the variants that survive better survive. That's all there is to the theory.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.

Well, you can't stop every intelligent person from using his own God-given brain. Many have tried through the ages, but man has the spark of the divine in him. You may shut my mouth by intimidation, but you can't stop by mind from seeing what it sees.

Well considering you disappear right after the evidence is spelled out; do you want me to spell it out again, or just link you to all the posts where the evidence is pointed out, where your position is completely destroyed and you have ignored it?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:28:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:20:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?
Yes.
the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce,

But we haven't "seen" nature produce species. It's only speculated that nature can do this.

Have you conducted an exhaustive biological literature search to substantiate this claim, V3nesl?

if so, please tell us what is significant about the following species, with respect to providing confirmatory evidence for evolutionary speciation:

* Trapogogon miscellus and Trapogogon mirus, [http://www.jstor.org...]
* Heliconius butterflies [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]
* Rhagoletis pomonella [http://dx.doi.org...]
* Orcinus orca [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]
* Monarcha castaneiventris [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

If not, please explain why this argument is anything other than an ignorant straw-man.

Thanks.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:23:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 8:47:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution wouldn't be considered a theory and fact if there weren't.

Evolution isn't a "fact".
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:37:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:23:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/25/2015 8:47:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Evolution wouldn't be considered a theory and fact if there weren't.

Evolution isn't a "fact".

Evolution : The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (http://www.biology-online.org...)

It is. See RuvDraba's previous post, #17. These changes are indicative of evolution. One would have to show how those instances of speciation are not evolution. Why do you contest this?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 1:21:30 PM, chui wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

This is not how scientists arrive at conclusions. We do not invent theories first and then look for evidence. It is the other way around. First we gather evidence then we ask what theory best explains the evidence. So to me it is natural to look at the evidence and ask "which explains this best, evolution or creation?". Overwhelmingly I find evolution gives the best fit.

However if we attempt your question we have to say that the evidence for evolution is not 100% conclusive. Then people leap in and say that we are admitting evolution cannot be proved. This is more akin to the process of law not science.

The evidence to be considered is well known: fossil record, radiometric dating,genetics, categorization studies, extinction studies, comparative anatomy etc. If you can show me how this evidence can be explained better by a theory other than evolution, ie engage in the scientific process, then I would be most interested in your ideas.

For example:

The fossil record shows that on millions of separate occasions new species have come into existence and most have since become extinct. What is a good explanation of that?

One possibility: a species becomes extinct when it is no longer needed. I think that evolution happens, but that here is an end goal.

If we organise species in chronological order we find that the primordial species are all single celled and remained so for 2 billion years or more. Why?

Who knows? Neo-Dawinian evolution doesn't explain it.

Why are marsupials only found on one continent?

They are found in South America, Australia, and the western hemisphere as well. Opossum is one common marsupial found in North and South America.

Why are all organisms so well adapted to their habitat despite the fact that habitats have changed constantly?

Epigenetic adaptation. They can react to changes in environment.

Why is the anatomy of a whale very similar to land mammals?

They evolved from land animals.

Why are there so many extinct species of primitive humans?

Nature is moving towards a goal. Evolution gives lots of chances to get it right.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:42:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce, and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.

I'm sure there are. But there are many problems with the current theory of evolution, that it needs to be addressed.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:46:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:42:36 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce, and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.

I'm sure there are. But there are many problems with the current theory of evolution, that it needs to be addressed.

Is that an expert judgement, Jane? If so, please cite a peer-reviewed paper from a respected biological journal outlining the scientific concerns about the fundamentals of evolution.

If not, are you perhaps blaming scientific research for your poor science education?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:59:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

If you have a problem with any single piece of the evidence you know exists, feel free to raise it here and I'm sure one of any number of people here will walk you through the particular line of evidence, how it ties in with other lines of evidence in a single universal narrative in which all evidence thus far discovered completely conforms, and I'm sure if you approach asking the question in Good faith, people will reply in kind.

However, I get the feeling that given your current level of exposure to both the internet, and the evidence on this forum; I suspect one of the following are true:

1.) You are not interested in what the evidence actually is, and simply want the evidence to be listed here so you can snipe at it with the same way "Holy Trinity" of arguments that others who don't believe in Evolution: straw-men, equivocation and circular reasoning , all using ignorant examples that demonstrates a considered lack of understanding of the concepts they are arguing against.

2.) You do not understand what the evidence is, or have not had enough exposure to it to connect the dots and construct and understand the evolutionary biological narrative for yourself and as such it does not make sense to you; combined with the Anti-Evolutionary non-scientific arguments that you have read are confusing the issue for you.

Only one of these options is really an honest one worthy of a reply, and assuming you are not making this post as a rhetorical attempt to bait someone here to reply, as such it would be useful to know what aspect of Biological Evolution you are having problems with.

I will also add, that Evolution is the fruition of 250 years of research, involving innumerable scientists; has survived the invention of multiple independent fields of science that all have the ability to prove it wrong, and has been tested, investigated with studies that have been scrutinized by other scientists. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientifically controlled studies, and papers that have established many of the mechanisms, properties and pathways by which evolution has occurred, and provided detailed explanations, and uncovered exceptional evidence both from the macro to molecular level that all consistently demonstrates how the structure and make up of everything that lives today fits only in with the narrative of evolution and common descent.

Given also that everyone contributing to this field has to be trained and educated in that specific field for generally at least 7 full time years in higher education including but not limited to a degree, and most often a PhD, and given that every single one of the studies is reviewed by several other individuals that not only have had equivalent training, but will generally have had years if not decades of additional experience in testing and evaluating the science involved in that field.

Given also, that science rewards new discovery and the overturning of scientific orthodoxy, with almost every single household name in science from Hawking to Einstein, to Darwin, to Schroedinger, being responsible in some way for contributing to the overturning of existing scientific orthodoxy...

How is it that only a set of Christians with little or no training in any field of Biology, who can be shown to consistently lie, distort, misrepresent, equivocate and cherry pick all the evidence; who consistently state that there is no evidence that could ever be uncovered that will change their mind, and approach the subject already believing that Evolution cannot be true; are the only ones who have realized that Evolution is wrong?

There are many problems with evolution as it stands. For instance, why are there different phylogenetic trees when different genes are tested?

The fossil record doesn't show a slow increase in compexity like you would expect, but apparent saltations.

Dawinian evolution does not explain convergence at all, it just slaps a label on the phenomenon.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 7:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:42:36 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Yes.

Next!

(Sorry, Jane. it was funny at 5am on a Sunday, after my first cup of coffee. :D)

Longer answer: the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce, and evolution is one of the most complex, well-evidenced and insightful accounts of nature science has ever produced.

The problem is, a high-school account of what's happening in biology (which is the account we're normally treated to in popular media) just isn't detailed enough on methods, observations, inferences and conclusions to explain how a modern understanding of evolution works.

Which makes evolution vulnerable to ignorant zealot strawmanning, and there are concerted campaigns to do just that.

I'm sure there are. But there are many problems with the current theory of evolution, that it needs to be addressed.

Is it possible that you, with little if any formal training in biology, lack the understanding and knowledge required to fully appreciate the theory and its application, rather than a collection of scientists who have been working on and experimenting on evolution for 150 years, each with at least 10 years of education and research into the field somehow not having the knowledge required to fully appreciate the theory and its application?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 7:04:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 8:12:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
Denying evolution is denying basic biology. When cells divide by meiosis, genetic information often transcripts incorrectly, causing differences in the genotype of the two different cells. This is a mutation. Meiosis is the form of cell division experienced during sexual reproduction. Mutations have been observed. Let's move on to organisms. When organisms reproduce sexually, the daughter organism has differences in the phenotype from the parent organism, as result of mutations. Hereditary traits that pass on keep gaining changes in relation to the genotype's interaction with the environment, causing some mutations -- biased mutations -- to be favored over others. These biased mutations are "selected" for or against. The mutations that change cause changes in the phenotype, while biased mutations maintain -- or progress -- hereditary traits. Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing. The mutations that are selected are in a process called selection.

Constant genetic mutations and selection cause evolution, since these act as the primary mechanisms for evolution. Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Speciation has been observed. There are multiple examples of observed speciation, e.g. the evening primrose. [http://www.talkorigins.org...]

I don't deny evolution. I just deny that evolution is due to random mutations and natural selection. Prove those mutation are random. I'd love to see it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 7:08:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:59:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

If you have a problem with any single piece of the evidence you know exists, feel free to raise it here and I'm sure one of any number of people here will walk you through the particular line of evidence, how it ties in with other lines of evidence in a single universal narrative in which all evidence thus far discovered completely conforms, and I'm sure if you approach asking the question in Good faith, people will reply in kind.

However, I get the feeling that given your current level of exposure to both the internet, and the evidence on this forum; I suspect one of the following are true:

1.) You are not interested in what the evidence actually is, and simply want the evidence to be listed here so you can snipe at it with the same way "Holy Trinity" of arguments that others who don't believe in Evolution: straw-men, equivocation and circular reasoning , all using ignorant examples that demonstrates a considered lack of understanding of the concepts they are arguing against.

2.) You do not understand what the evidence is, or have not had enough exposure to it to connect the dots and construct and understand the evolutionary biological narrative for yourself and as such it does not make sense to you; combined with the Anti-Evolutionary non-scientific arguments that you have read are confusing the issue for you.

Only one of these options is really an honest one worthy of a reply, and assuming you are not making this post as a rhetorical attempt to bait someone here to reply, as such it would be useful to know what aspect of Biological Evolution you are having problems with.

I will also add, that Evolution is the fruition of 250 years of research, involving innumerable scientists; has survived the invention of multiple independent fields of science that all have the ability to prove it wrong, and has been tested, investigated with studies that have been scrutinized by other scientists. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientifically controlled studies, and papers that have established many of the mechanisms, properties and pathways by which evolution has occurred, and provided detailed explanations, and uncovered exceptional evidence both from the macro to molecular level that all consistently demonstrates how the structure and make up of everything that lives today fits only in with the narrative of evolution and common descent.

Given also that everyone contributing to this field has to be trained and educated in that specific field for generally at least 7 full time years in higher education including but not limited to a degree, and most often a PhD, and given that every single one of the studies is reviewed by several other individuals that not only have had equivalent training, but will generally have had years if not decades of additional experience in testing and evaluating the science involved in that field.

Given also, that science rewards new discovery and the overturning of scientific orthodoxy, with almost every single household name in science from Hawking to Einstein, to Darwin, to Schroedinger, being responsible in some way for contributing to the overturning of existing scientific orthodoxy...

How is it that only a set of Christians with little or no training in any field of Biology, who can be shown to consistently lie, distort, misrepresent, equivocate and cherry pick all the evidence; who consistently state that there is no evidence that could ever be uncovered that will change their mind, and approach the subject already believing that Evolution cannot be true; are the only ones who have realized that Evolution is wrong?

There are many problems with evolution as it stands. For instance, why are there different phylogenetic trees when different genes are tested?

That's not really true.

The fossil record doesn't show a slow increase in compexity like you would expect, but apparent saltations.

as you would expect?

Would you expect the amount of selective pressure to be the same for all species all the time?

Would you expect the selection pressure on a species that has lost its food supply and had to live of things that it doesn't usually eat in environments it doesn't usually live in to be the same as a species well adapted to its environment?

Dawinian evolution does not explain convergence at all, it just slaps a label on the phenomenon.

Yes it does. Indeed convergence is superficial similarity over completely different structural items. It's almost universally physical, and driving a species to a particular form is due to there being one physical shape or form that is most efficient for the particular behavior or environment,
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 7:16:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 7:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:59:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

If you have a problem with any single piece of the evidence you know exists, feel free to raise it here and I'm sure one of any number of people here will walk you through the particular line of evidence, how it ties in with other lines of evidence in a single universal narrative in which all evidence thus far discovered completely conforms, and I'm sure if you approach asking the question in Good faith, people will reply in kind.

However, I get the feeling that given your current level of exposure to both the internet, and the evidence on this forum; I suspect one of the following are true:

1.) You are not interested in what the evidence actually is, and simply want the evidence to be listed here so you can snipe at it with the same way "Holy Trinity" of arguments that others who don't believe in Evolution: straw-men, equivocation and circular reasoning , all using ignorant examples that demonstrates a considered lack of understanding of the concepts they are arguing against.

2.) You do not understand what the evidence is, or have not had enough exposure to it to connect the dots and construct and understand the evolutionary biological narrative for yourself and as such it does not make sense to you; combined with the Anti-Evolutionary non-scientific arguments that you have read are confusing the issue for you.

Only one of these options is really an honest one worthy of a reply, and assuming you are not making this post as a rhetorical attempt to bait someone here to reply, as such it would be useful to know what aspect of Biological Evolution you are having problems with.

I will also add, that Evolution is the fruition of 250 years of research, involving innumerable scientists; has survived the invention of multiple independent fields of science that all have the ability to prove it wrong, and has been tested, investigated with studies that have been scrutinized by other scientists. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientifically controlled studies, and papers that have established many of the mechanisms, properties and pathways by which evolution has occurred, and provided detailed explanations, and uncovered exceptional evidence both from the macro to molecular level that all consistently demonstrates how the structure and make up of everything that lives today fits only in with the narrative of evolution and common descent.

Given also that everyone contributing to this field has to be trained and educated in that specific field for generally at least 7 full time years in higher education including but not limited to a degree, and most often a PhD, and given that every single one of the studies is reviewed by several other individuals that not only have had equivalent training, but will generally have had years if not decades of additional experience in testing and evaluating the science involved in that field.

Given also, that science rewards new discovery and the overturning of scientific orthodoxy, with almost every single household name in science from Hawking to Einstein, to Darwin, to Schroedinger, being responsible in some way for contributing to the overturning of existing scientific orthodoxy...

How is it that only a set of Christians with little or no training in any field of Biology, who can be shown to consistently lie, distort, misrepresent, equivocate and cherry pick all the evidence; who consistently state that there is no evidence that could ever be uncovered that will change their mind, and approach the subject already believing that Evolution cannot be true; are the only ones who have realized that Evolution is wrong?

There are many problems with evolution as it stands. For instance, why are there different phylogenetic trees when different genes are tested?

That's not really true.

http://ncse.com...


The fossil record doesn't show a slow increase in compexity like you would expect, but apparent saltations.

as you would expect?

Would you expect the amount of selective pressure to be the same for all species all the time?

Would you expect the selection pressure on a species that has lost its food supply and had to live of things that it doesn't usually eat in environments it doesn't usually live in to be the same as a species well adapted to its environment?

Dawinian evolution does not explain convergence at all, it just slaps a label on the phenomenon.

Yes it does. Indeed convergence is superficial similarity over completely different structural items. It's almost universally physical, and driving a species to a particular form is due to there being one physical shape or form that is most efficient for the particular behavior or environment,
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:28:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:20:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?
Yes.
the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce,

But we haven't "seen" nature produce species. It's only speculated that nature can do this.

Have you conducted an exhaustive biological literature search to substantiate this claim, V3nesl?


Wow. See, sometimes the question itself is the answer. So you agree that there is no sight, only literature. Just think about it, man, just think. It's not a boxing match, you don't have to defend against everything I say. Find the courage to accept the truth of individual points.

Let's do analogy again: Evolution is like stacking bricks. We all agree that you can stack bricks. You've seen it done. Nobody disputes that bricks can be stacked. But someone has made the claim that you can reach the moon by stacking enough bricks. Well, maybe you can, maybe you can't. I point out that nobody has ever done this. Nobody has stacked bricks up to the moon. Nobody has even seen a stack that high. So those who claim that bricks can be stacked to the moon are speculating.

So, we've seen descent with modification. We've seen it happen. Nobody is disputing that it happens. But somebody has claimed that the whole of the ecosystem emerged by this process, and this process alone. But nobody has seen this happen. Nobody has even seen an entirely new species or feature emerge by this process. So 'evolution', in its broad definition, is speculation.

if so, please tell us what is significant about the following species, with respect to providing confirmatory evidence for evolutionary speciation:


They weren't seen being formed, Ruv. Their formation is speculated based upon similarities and differences from other specimens and species. Enough generations have passed that some of the speculators aren't even aware that the formative works they assume as fact are in fact speculation. But they are speculation. Many layers of assumption are still assumption, and will always be in a different class from what is actually tested and proven to work as claimed.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 9:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 8:57:13 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:28:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:20:07 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/26/2015 7:06:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:57:47 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?
Yes.
the development of living species is one of the most complex and wonderful phenomena we've ever seen nature produce,

But we haven't "seen" nature produce species. It's only speculated that nature can do this.

Have you conducted an exhaustive biological literature search to substantiate this claim, V3nesl?


Wow. See, sometimes the question itself is the answer. So you agree that there is no sight, only literature. Just think about it, man, just think. It's not a boxing match, you don't have to defend against everything I say. Find the courage to accept the truth of individual points.

Let's do analogy again: Evolution is like stacking bricks. We all agree that you can stack bricks. You've seen it done. Nobody disputes that bricks can be stacked. But someone has made the claim that you can reach the moon by stacking enough bricks. Well, maybe you can, maybe you can't. I point out that nobody has ever done this. Nobody has stacked bricks up to the moon. Nobody has even seen a stack that high. So those who claim that bricks can be stacked to the moon are speculating.

So, we've seen descent with modification. We've seen it happen. Nobody is disputing that it happens. But somebody has claimed that the whole of the ecosystem emerged by this process, and this process alone. But nobody has seen this happen. Nobody has even seen an entirely new species or feature emerge by this process. So 'evolution', in its broad definition, is speculation.

if so, please tell us what is significant about the following species, with respect to providing confirmatory evidence for evolutionary speciation:


They weren't seen being formed, Ruv.

Please explain what you understand of these species, the linked papers, and the relevance to evidence for speciation.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 9:51:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 7:16:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/28/2015 7:08:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:59:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:53:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/25/2015 7:19:05 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there any real evidence?

Given that you have been here for a few months, and have undoubtedly viewed and "Contributed" in a number of threads where this evidence has been both summarized and detailed; and given that you seem to be computer literate enough to find this site, I am pretty sure that the evidence for evolution is both easily and readily accessible to you and indeed within this site alone has been summarized to the extent that if you're asking this question I'm sure you already know the answer to it.

If you have a problem with any single piece of the evidence you know exists, feel free to raise it here and I'm sure one of any number of people here will walk you through the particular line of evidence, how it ties in with other lines of evidence in a single universal narrative in which all evidence thus far discovered completely conforms, and I'm sure if you approach asking the question in Good faith, people will reply in kind.

However, I get the feeling that given your current level of exposure to both the internet, and the evidence on this forum; I suspect one of the following are true:

1.) You are not interested in what the evidence actually is, and simply want the evidence to be listed here so you can snipe at it with the same way "Holy Trinity" of arguments that others who don't believe in Evolution: straw-men, equivocation and circular reasoning , all using ignorant examples that demonstrates a considered lack of understanding of the concepts they are arguing against.

2.) You do not understand what the evidence is, or have not had enough exposure to it to connect the dots and construct and understand the evolutionary biological narrative for yourself and as such it does not make sense to you; combined with the Anti-Evolutionary non-scientific arguments that you have read are confusing the issue for you.

Only one of these options is really an honest one worthy of a reply, and assuming you are not making this post as a rhetorical attempt to bait someone here to reply, as such it would be useful to know what aspect of Biological Evolution you are having problems with.

I will also add, that Evolution is the fruition of 250 years of research, involving innumerable scientists; has survived the invention of multiple independent fields of science that all have the ability to prove it wrong, and has been tested, investigated with studies that have been scrutinized by other scientists. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientifically controlled studies, and papers that have established many of the mechanisms, properties and pathways by which evolution has occurred, and provided detailed explanations, and uncovered exceptional evidence both from the macro to molecular level that all consistently demonstrates how the structure and make up of everything that lives today fits only in with the narrative of evolution and common descent.

Given also that everyone contributing to this field has to be trained and educated in that specific field for generally at least 7 full time years in higher education including but not limited to a degree, and most often a PhD, and given that every single one of the studies is reviewed by several other individuals that not only have had equivalent training, but will generally have had years if not decades of additional experience in testing and evaluating the science involved in that field.

Given also, that science rewards new discovery and the overturning of scientific orthodoxy, with almost every single household name in science from Hawking to Einstein, to Darwin, to Schroedinger, being responsible in some way for contributing to the overturning of existing scientific orthodoxy...

How is it that only a set of Christians with little or no training in any field of Biology, who can be shown to consistently lie, distort, misrepresent, equivocate and cherry pick all the evidence; who consistently state that there is no evidence that could ever be uncovered that will change their mind, and approach the subject already believing that Evolution cannot be true; are the only ones who have realized that Evolution is wrong?

There are many problems with evolution as it stands. For instance, why are there different phylogenetic trees when different genes are tested?

That's not really true.

http://ncse.com...


The fossil record doesn't show a slow increase in compexity like you would expect, but apparent saltations.

as you would expect?

Would you expect the amount of selective pressure to be the same for all species all the time?

Would you expect the selection pressure on a species that has lost its food supply and had to live of things that it doesn't usually eat in environments it doesn't usually live in to be the same as a species well adapted to its environment?

Dawinian evolution does not explain convergence at all, it just slaps a label on the phenomenon.

Yes it does. Indeed convergence is superficial similarity over completely different structural items. It's almost universally physical, and driving a species to a particular form is due to there being one physical shape or form that is most efficient for the particular behavior or environment,

It should be INCREDIBLY telling, that in order to prove me wrong, you really don't read the source you cite.

Indeed, it's ironic that this source is a refutation on one that makes the claims you do...

"Inconsistencies are most common when analyzing phylogenetic events in the very deep past (such as separation of the main animal groups in the pre-Cambrian), and occur for reasons that are well characterized and indeed predicted based on statistical and evolutionary considerations (changes in evolutionary rates, convergent evolution, etc.). In addition, the recent exponential increase in available sequence data has been shown successfully overcoming these artifacts, generating consistent trees with high confidence."

Indeed, the entire article seems to be aimed at showing that the claims that the genomes yield vastly different trees regularly is not supported by the evidence.