62
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
aperson
 
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 02:13 am
You cannot "see" evolution as a whole, just as you cannot see tectonic plates moving. It happens over a long period of time. The time-span of human existance is a mere blip on evolutionary scale. It is near impossible for we as humans to conceive this.

I am fed up with ignoramuses doubting evolution. DO YOUR RESEARCH DAMMIT.

You cannot "see" evolution, BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO! All you have to do is put together basic facts.

Do you believe that there is such a thing as mutation?
Do you believe that there is such a thing as reproduction?
Do you believe that there is such a thing as the passing on of genes from parent to offspring?
Do you believe that there is such a thing as natural selection?

If you answered "yes" to all of these questions (and I very much hope you did), then you can answer "yes" to this also:

Do you believe that there is such a thing as evolution?

Evolution is a very simple concept, don't try to complicate it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 62 • Views: 221,294 • Replies: 5,093

 
aperson
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 02:17 am
And try not to think of evolution as a movie, but as a slideshow (just a very long one). It's just like those word puzzles (what are they called again?).

word
worn
torn
etc
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 02:44 am
aperson

I agree with the thrust of your "frustration" but you miss at least two key philosophical issues which "soft line creationists" cash in on even if "fundamentalists" appear to belong in an asylum.

1. No "theory" is ever "proved"....it is only "supported".

2. Even if the mutational "mechanisms" of evolution are plausible (and some theists think they are)...this does not exclude the concept of a "deity" as a an originator or influence on such mechanisms.
real life
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 01:51 pm
A mutation that changes the color of one's hair, or the shape of one's nose, is a far cry from a group of mutations that can build a complex structure, such as an eye, or a biological system, such as a circulatory system, where none existed before.

Evolution, if it happens, is not a 'simple' process. Far from it.

And you have more than a 'simple' job to prove that evolution not only COULD happen , but that it in fact DID and DOES happen.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 01:57 pm
Science has proven that the great preponderance of evidence supports evolution. That is why the study has moved from mere hypothesis to theory. Unlike religious solutions, which haven't a whit of hard evidence in their favor.
0 Replies
 
c logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 04:26 pm
real life wrote:
A mutation that changes the color of one's hair, or the shape of one's nose, is a far cry from a group of mutations that can build a complex structure, such as an eye, or a biological system, such as a circulatory system, where none existed before.

Evolution, if it happens, is not a 'simple' process. Far from it.

And you have more than a 'simple' job to prove that evolution not only COULD happen , but that it in fact DID and DOES happen.


real life,

The evidence that evolution DID and DOES happen is in front of us, and it's very difficult to ignore. Most living beings on earth are too similar for us to say that we are not related and did not evolve from one another. Just like us, many living beings on earth have eyes, ears, noses, etc... Take monkeys for example (especially apes)... We're approximately 98% similar on a genetic level. It's amazing to see how much they resemble us, especially when it comes to their intelligence, facial expressions, etc... it's almost human!
How about fossil evidence and bones that were dug up that provide plenty of evidence to support evolution of specific living beings? How about the Neanderthal findings? Why are these things being ignored? Evolution does happen.

Yes, it's hard to imagine how we came to be the way we are now, if you look at humans ALONE and how complex we are... but if you do it step by step it's not that impossible or outrageous. Why is the 2% mutation between apes and humans impossible? Because we are too good for them and don't want to be associated in any way?
Also, why is it impossible that the more intelligent apes evolved from less intelligent monkeys? Why is it impossible to think that they as well evolved from something less complex, etc, etc,...

The problem regarding how such a complex being as a human came to be is not a real problem... It's a problem with the human ego, wanting to be associated with a devine being, NOT with "dirty animals". The irony is that many times we can be worse than animals: Sadists, killers, rapists, etc...


If you had a choice to pick from...
1. Evolution. Evidence? Many puzzle pieces including mutation, random coincidences, fossil evidence, and a WHOLE LOT of time (billions of years) for things to happen...
2. Intelligent design. Evidence? None.

Why not pick the best thing we've got at this point, which is evolution?
Evolution is not outrageous and without substance... There's just so much evidence... it's very difficult to ignore.
aperson
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 04:32 pm
real life,
Evolution happens very, very, very slowly. If a person (sorry) is born with slightly fairer skin, he has less chance of survival than a darker skined person if there are many UV rays present. It isa simple; only through complication of evolution can you doubt it.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 04:48 pm
fresco,
If theory has much evidence supporting it, but no actual "proof" surely we can say that this theory is true.

If people belive in a greater deity effected type of evolution, than there is no problem; at least they accept they facts supporting evidence, even if they incorporate it into their own religion.
real life
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 08:05 pm
c_logic wrote:
real life wrote:
A mutation that changes the color of one's hair, or the shape of one's nose, is a far cry from a group of mutations that can build a complex structure, such as an eye, or a biological system, such as a circulatory system, where none existed before.

Evolution, if it happens, is not a 'simple' process. Far from it.

And you have more than a 'simple' job to prove that evolution not only COULD happen , but that it in fact DID and DOES happen.


real life,

The evidence that evolution DID and DOES happen is in front of us, and it's very difficult to ignore. Most living beings on earth are too similar for us to say that we are not related and did not evolve from one another. Just like us, many living beings on earth have eyes, ears, noses, etc... ............


You want to make a case from the similarities of other animals ( eyes, ears etc) , but evolutionists now tell us that those similarities WERE NOT always inherited from their predecessors.

An example?

A common claim of evolutionists today is: the eye has 'evolved' independently on dozens of occasions (some claim 40 occurences, or more).

If the eye developed independently on numerous occasions, then many organisms having eyes IS NOT evidence that they descended from one another at all.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

c_logic wrote:
Take monkeys for example (especially apes)... We're approximately 98% similar on a genetic level.



The numbers I have seen range from 1-4%, representing tens of millions of differences. So while even 2% may not sound like a lot, it clearly is.

Quote:
Chimpanzee Genome Holds Key to Human Uniqueness
The chimpanzee genome, which has existed in draft form since the beginning of this year, is poised to reveal new insights into human health and history, according to Svante Paabo. The renowned molecular anthropologist from the University of Leipzig spoke at a plenary session of the annual meeting of HUGO (the Human Genome Organization), which began in Berlin this week.

Paabo and colleagues bring molecular genetic techniques to bear on questions of human evolution. Few advances in that regard are more important than the imminent completion and publication of the chimpanzee genome sequence.

Chimpanzees are our closest relative in evolution, having diverged about 5 million years ago. The genomes of the two species are 98.8 percent identical at the DNA level - a trivial difference in some respects, although Paabo pointed out that this equates to some 40 million variants in total across the genome[/i][/u], not including numerous rearrangements and insertions and deletions.
from http://www.bio-itworld.com/columns/new-news/chimpanzee-genome-holds-key-to-human-uniqueness--2004-04-05t000000-2-4789


Some more interesting points to ponder here:

Quote:
from http://www.hhmi.org/news/eichler2.html
0 Replies
 
c logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 09:32 pm
real life, I agree with you that some theories are shaky and need more research. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, however, there are so many puzzle pieces that are in favor of evolution.
The Eye example, even if, say, Humans and Elephants didn't inherit it from the same ancestors, it shouldn't necessarily present a problem for evolution. It simply says that an Eye is such a critical element for survival that most species needed to develop it in order to stand a better chance.

I have not seen any sort of evidence that is in favor of Intelligent Design, the only exception being Word Of Mouth, which can not be considered reliable evidence.

The thing that REALLY boggles my mind is not how people or other living beings came to be... I find the answer to be fairly simple and straightforward: Evolution
The thing that really boggles my mind is the concept of Consciousness and its context.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 11:47 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
aperson wrote:
Evolution is a very simple concept, don't try to complicate it.


I agree.

The basic tenets of the theory are unavoidable and imperative within the biological world as we know it.

Given the structures of biology as we currently understand them, it's logically impossible for evolution NOT to be happening (and to have happened).

Even if we try desperately to pre-suppose the magical hand of God tweaking every single single nuance of reproduction a billion times a day in order to replicate the effects of evolution, we still, for all intents and purposes, have evolution. The illusion of creation is perfect and indistinguishable from nature.

If God put it all in motion, then evolution still happened.

And if God created reality with every indication of evolution, then the creation is indistinguishable from nature, and evolution is real again.

And if God forces every step of the process every day, then we still have a perfect illusion, and we're back to evolution again.

The logic is inescapable without resorting to the philosophical underpinnings of our perception of reality.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 11:48 pm
c_logic, what you are missing is that all these things you are saying are brainwashing propaganda.

Science is just the latest technique being used to pretend that God and all of His Creation is somehow mundane and ordinary, and that human beings are no more than animals, thereby justifying animal attitudes and behaviour.

If you have faith in God, and trust him to show you the truth in you heart, then you will KNOW the REAL truth.

The Enemy's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist !!

(real life, how was that....?)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Nov, 2006 11:51 pm
The idea that the eye has 'evolved' dozens of times independently, but is often built similarly, placed in the same location on the body, uses the same features and chemical processes, has the same supporting structures (eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts. And how did each critter's skull know it was supposed to evolve twin holes to accomodate eyes that didn't yet exist? ) , etc is so preposterous as to be laughable.

There is really NO evidence that evolution can or has developed whole organs, biological systems or whole new body plans by an accumulation of 'beneficial mutations'.

Mutations are usually harmful, or have zero impact. Rarely are they beneficial in any real sense, and certainly not to the extent that the minor difference would convey an immediate 'survival advantage'.

The advantage must be immediate and large enough to make a difference in the quality and/ or length of the organism's life, for at least some of the offspring of the original recipient likely will not even receive the mutation in their own DNA. If the mutation is not dominant, it may never be seen again. The ones who do happen to receive it must benefit from it right away, or, even as evolutionists admit, the new trait will not be selected for.

There really is no evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

Evolution has no plausible explanation (and some claim it is outside of the theory to expect it) for how living things came to be from dead chemicals. Spontaneous generation of life from non-life would violate some very basic laws of science.

Information (such as genetic information) doesn't assemble itself from nothing, and systems do not self organize.

DNA cannot be produced without numerous chemicals all in the right amounts and combinations, such as enzymes which are required. However all of the enzymes needed to produce DNA cannot be assembled without the information contained in the DNA.

Evolutionists propose that life was present within less than a billion years of the Earth being formed. However, the sun would not have produced enough heat at that point to thaw the Earth sufficiently to produce the balmy tropical climate that most admit would have been required.

So if even a single celled (or more primitive) organism could not have been produced by natural processes in 3/4 of a billion years, what is the point of pretending that whole organs, biological systems and numerous complete body plans (in fact the founding members of most of the phyla extant today) could develop in less time[/u] during the Cambrian period and those immediately before and after?

And then, as you mentioned, you must be able to account for the rapid and total differentiation of man from the rest of the animals.

Consciousness is but one aspect. Thousands of spoken languages, cognitive ability, civilization, the ability to act against one's own self interest and survival (the very antithesis of evolution) and MUCH more are totally unexplained by the 'man is a such clever animal' theory.

Yeah, evolution's a 'shaky theory' alright. You're right about that.

It relies on circular argumentation , such as the concept of 'speciation' as proof of evolution, and the need to assume evolution in order to prove evolution.

Even Darwin assumed evolution before he went looking for proof. His grandfather was a prominent evolutionist, writing about his views decades before Charles ever heard of the Beagle.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:04 am
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
rosborne979 wrote:
aperson wrote:
Evolution is a very simple concept, don't try to complicate it.


I agree.

The basic tenets of the theory are unavoidable and imperative within the biological world as we know it.

Given the structures of biology as we currently understand them, it's logically impossible for evolution NOT to be happening (and to have happened).

Even if we try desperately to pre-suppose the magical hand of God tweaking every single single nuance of reproduction a billion times a day in order to replicate the effects of evolution, we still, for all intents and purposes, have evolution. The illusion of creation is perfect and indistinguishable from nature.

If God put it all in motion, then evolution still happened.

And if God created reality with every indication of evolution, then the creation is indistinguishable from nature, and evolution is real again.

And if God forces every step of the process every day, then we still have a perfect illusion, and we're back to evolution again.

The logic is inescapable without resorting to the philosophical underpinnings of our perception of reality.


The philosophical underpinnings are where it's at for the evolutionist, aren't they Ros?

You must accept presuppositions that cannot be questioned , in effect eliminating any alternative ideas before examining any evidence.

If evolution is the only game in town, then it must be the answer, right?

Kinda sounds like the same thing you criticize religion for.

Both creation and evolution interpret the world and draw inferences that tend toward their own conclusions. Religion is fairly straightforward about this. Evolution is not, but likes to pretend 'objectivity' and 'scientific method' as it's only rule.

I must say though, you are not getting much slicker in your presentation --- 'given the world as we understand it, we don't understand how it could've happened any other way'.

I've heard more persuasive lines from telemarketers.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:17 am
real life wrote:
The idea that the eye has 'evolved' dozens of times independently, but is often built similarly, placed in the same location on the body, uses the same features and chemical processes, has the same supporting structures (eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts. And how did each critter's skull know it was supposed to evolve twin holes to accomodate eyes that didn't yet exist? ) , etc is so preposterous as to be laughable.


Everyone who actually understands evolution stops reading right there.

The notion that a giant in the sky just "poofed" it all into being is hardly logical by comparison.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:32 am
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
The idea that the eye has 'evolved' dozens of times independently, but is often built similarly, placed in the same location on the body, uses the same features and chemical processes, has the same supporting structures (eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts. And how did each critter's skull know it was supposed to evolve twin holes to accomodate eyes that didn't yet exist? ) , etc is so preposterous as to be laughable.


Everyone who actually understands evolution stops reading right there.

The notion that a giant in the sky just "poofed" it all into being is hardly logical by comparison.


Yeah, don't let anybody read further. Dissent is dangerous, huh Eorl?

How many times do YOU think the eye evolved independently, Eorl?

And how do you account for it's similar structures (sure , doubtless some of them are built differently, but MANY of them are VERY similar. That's the ones you need to explain) , placement on the body, chemical processes, and support structures surrounding it , when it all happened independently of one another?

If the eye evolved from 'a single patch of light sensitive skin', how did nearly all critters get TWO of them, symmetrically placed in the same general region (the head)? Just coincidence, right?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:47 am
aperson wrote

Quote:
If theory has much evidence supporting it, but no actual "proof" surely we can say that this theory is true.

If people belive in a greater deity effected type of evolution, than there is no problem; at least they accept they facts supporting evidence, even if they incorporate it into their own religion.



You miss the point. The philosophical fallacy is that neither "truth" nor "proof" apply to either evolution or religion. These are lay-concepts used in everyday social interactions. Those who don't see the fallacy engage in futile arguments over "design" and "pupose" in which most religionists have a major psychological investment. Evolutionists should note that any reductionist (bottom-up) system is prone to philosophical inadequacies. The same is true in physics with trying to describe the ultimate constituents of the unviverse. What matters as "explanation" is predictive or retrodictive reliability not "truth".
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:48 am
aperson wrote

Quote:
If theory has much evidence supporting it, but no actual "proof" surely we can say that this theory is true.

If people belive in a greater deity effected type of evolution, than there is no problem; at least they accept they facts supporting evidence, even if they incorporate it into their own religion.



You miss the point. The philosophical fallacy is that neither "truth" nor "proof" apply to either evolution or religion. These are lay-concepts used in everyday social interactions. Those who don't see the fallacy engage in futile arguments over "design" and "pupose" in which most
have a major psychological investment in an attempt to justify their own view of the status of their personal "existence". Evolutionists should note that any reductionist (bottom-up) system is prone to philosophical inadequacies. The same is true in physics with trying to describe the ultimate constituents of the universe. What matters as "scientific explanation" is not "truth" but (a)elegance (b)predictive or retrodictive reliability and (c) range of applicability.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 01:10 am
Please excuse my dim-wittedness, oh great omniscient fresco, but I don't quite get what you're saying...

Just as a matter if fact, the chances of a mutation being beneficial are roughly one in a million (note that "mutations" are different from normal inherited genes").
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 01:11 am
[Hmm...........please ignore the first above
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2017 at 10:45:17