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

rl said:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs."

Wrong again, rl. "reasonable doubt" in scientific terms tanslates to 2 or 3 sigma deviation from the mean, as farmerman has caught you up on before. It's not certainty, but it has proven to be a very good measure of how real life (not you, the world) actually functions, and a very good predictor. And the way real science works.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:

Please cite where this was said or implied.

You dismissed username's response, duh.

What are you talking about?

A better question is , which are NOT strictly scientific methods?

Interviews with potential or professing witnesses is one for starters

Looking for tracks in the grass is (rather weak) circumstantial evidence at best

Citing historical records (another form of interviewing witnesses secondhand as it were) i.e. checking the weather for the day

The standard of proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a legal benchmark, not a scientific one.

It ain't only word definitions, but the whole concept of logic and common sense.

username wrote:

rl said:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly possible, but some of the methods, as well as the standard of proof you cite, are not tools of the scientific method, but rather are used of legal/historical proofs."

Wrong again, rl. "reasonable doubt" in scientific terms tanslates to 2 or 3 sigma deviation from the mean, as farmerman has caught you up on before. It's not certainty, but it has proven to be a very good measure of how real life (not you, the world) actually functions, and a very good predictor. And the way real science works.

So which methods that were suggested by username are NOT part of the scientific method rl?

You said.. Now YOU have to support it.



Present "hypothesis" - real life will not support his claim

suggested alternatives will be 1. change the subject. or 2. not respond to me at all. 3. make some claim that upon further questioning will result in 1 or 2.

real life wrote:

A better question is , which are NOT strictly scientific methods?

Interviews with potential or professing witnesses is one for starters

Really? This is not part of the scientific method? Since when? Interviewing observers is VERY MUCH a part of the scientific method. In fact the scientific method REQUIRES that observations be written down and published.

RL,

The scientific method is used this way in evolutionary theory: if evolutionary theory is correct it will predict what you should find in the fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion describes the geologically sudden appearance of hard-bodied animals in the fossil record, around 530 million years ago. This is accompanied by a profound diversification of life[1] on Earth. Prior to around 580 million years ago, organisms were on the whole simple, comprised of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. Over the subsequent 70-80 million years, the rate of evolution would accelerate by an order of magnitude,[2] and the diversity of life would begin to resemble today's.[3]

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[4] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[5]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere........

The sudden emergence of life, in all its variety and with all its different bodily structures within such a short space of time, runs completely contrary to Darwinism's expectations. The way that a number of the phyla that emerged during the Cambrian subsequently became extinct, along with the failure of any new phyla to emerge, reinforces this contradiction. Life did not increasingly broaden and assume greater variety, as evolutionists would have us believe. Rather, it began in many different forms and increasingly narrowed down.

One of the world's most prominent critics of Darwinism, Professor Philip Johnson of University of California, describes these events as being in clear contradiction of Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversifies to create the various levels of the taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing

The conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.[42]

Until recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian period, especially with the recent discovery of two fossil fish in China.[64]

The two new fossils . . . from Chengjiang are the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found. The insects and other land invertebrates are also a very important group, and these practically all seem to be living fossils.[64]

These complex animals were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory.[42]

Evolution does not explain the abrupt appearance of complex forms of life early in the fossil record or these fossils' unequaled diversity. The implication of the Cambrian explosion of diverse, fully functional, and multicellular life is that evolutionary theory is falsified.[42]

Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory.[42]

"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation rather than evolution. All the major groups of invertebrates appear suddenly in the first fossiliferous strata. (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations, indicating that they were all created at almost the same time." - David Enock Associate Professor of Biology. BS Yeshiva College, MS Hunter College[31]

Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit, "In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."[31]

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

A better question is , which are NOT strictly scientific methods?

Interviews with potential or professing witnesses is one for starters

Really? This is not part of the scientific method? Since when? Interviewing observers is VERY MUCH a part of the scientific method. In fact the scientific method REQUIRES that observations be written down and published.

Interviewing purported observers is very different from the observations specified by a correct use of the scientific method, parados.

Think about it.

You should have read my response on the previous page before trying to suggest I would not answer.

Science is not restricted to laboratory experiments observed by the persons conducting them.

Interviewing purported observers is very different from the observations specified by a correct use of the scientific method, parados.

Think about it.

parados wrote:

Science is not restricted to laboratory experiments observed by the persons conducting them.

Didn't say this. More distortions from you , I see.

Does evolution predict the sudden appearance of most major phyla in the Cambrian period?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Quote:

The Cambrian explosion describes the geologically sudden appearance of hard-bodied animals in the fossil record, around 530 million years ago. This is accompanied by a profound diversification of life[1] on Earth. Prior to around 580 million years ago, organisms were on the whole simple, comprised of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. Over the subsequent 70-80 million years, the rate of evolution would accelerate by an order of magnitude,[2] and the diversity of life would begin to resemble today's.[3]

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[4] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[5]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere........

A lot can and has happened in 20 million years. Look at us.Look at whales, look at birds. As the Vast deposits of Ediacaran fauna are still being dicovered (aided by continental drift predictive tools) we add a few dozen new Ediacaran faunas a year. resently 5 of them are "sort of" hard shelled.

Can we assume that RL, in accepting the Cambrian explosion, now accepts the fact that the earth is older than 600 million years?

real life wrote:

Does evolution predict the sudden appearance of most major phyla in the Cambrian period?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Quote:

The Cambrian explosion describes the geologically sudden appearance of hard-bodied animals in the fossil record, around 530 million years ago. This is accompanied by a profound diversification of life[1] on Earth. Prior to around 580 million years ago, organisms were on the whole simple, comprised of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. Over the subsequent 70-80 million years, the rate of evolution would accelerate by an order of magnitude,[2] and the diversity of life would begin to resemble today's.[3]

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[4] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the principal objections that could be lodged against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[5]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere........

Yes, but Charles Darwin also said that the geological record was bound to be imperfect due to the necessary criteria for fossilisation. That the Cambrian apparently shows a huge increase of different species proves nothing, other than there was an apparent increase in number of different species.

It does not prove anything wrong, anymore than me proving that the entire Book of Job was fabricated nonsense would disprove the existence of God. If I were to do that right now, that would not mean the rest of the Bible is wrong, only that Job is wrong.

I'm not even going to respond to your silly eye argument, because evolution can explain it perfectly well. It doesn't have to just predict, it can explain as well.

Evolution doesn't predict that things could have evolved that early, you say. Where the Hell does it say that? Go on. You tell me.