Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Nails]

I've never heard of a naturalist (at least in the modern, western world) who did not agree with atomic theory. That doesn't make atomic theory a naturalist-exclusive view. That's fallacious thinking because there are many theists who also agree with evolution. Acceptance of evolution is not naturalist-exclusive thinking. Take me for example. I accept evolution but do not consider myself to be a naturalist. There are in fact atheists that do not accept evolution (I've even seen one grace this discussion board before).

Didn't mean to say there are not theists (or others) who also accept evolution, just that it seems to me that all naturalists do as well.

 

[Nails]

Then you are fooling yourself. Its not faith if its based on evidence and observation. If you don't find the current evidence conclusive then you need to remove whatever it is that is stopping you from accepting the evidence. Its pure bias at this point. Though it is clear that you don't want to accept evolution and you are going to fight tooth and nail not to accept it.

Seems to me that there should be an abundance of evidence: a great deal more than what we have now.

Otherwise you are correct that I am biased. Having once been an atheist & essentially Darwinian naturalist, but now a christian I have found that the evidence I once saw as compelling is no longer so compelling. I see the evidence of evolution as requiring more faith than to believe in God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Seems to me that there should be an abundance of evidence: a great deal more than what we have now.

Otherwise you are correct that I am biased. Having once been an atheist & essentially Darwinian naturalist, but now a christian I have found that the evidence I once saw as compelling is no longer so compelling. I see the evidence of evolution as requiring more faith than to believe in God.

Out of interest- what first raised your doubt, i.e. did you become skeptical of evolution first and hence then skeptical of atheism, or the other way around?

 

[Nails]

Out of interest- what first raised your doubt, i.e. did you become skeptical of evolution first and hence then skeptical of atheism, or the other way around?

Can't say for sure how it started, they were not necessarily connected. I do think that acceptance of evolution can lead to atheism. As stated by someone above some are able to reconcile evolution (parts) with Christianity. I don't think that it's necessary to compromise my religious beliefs for science. No I'm not a flat earther; I'm a rocket scientist (literally), and I love science. Biology is empirical science like chemistry and physics, but evolution is not the same. Darwinian Evolution is based on historical evidence and represents the best current explanation of the facts from a naturalistic world view.

Over the course of billions of years it seems to me there would be literally tons of fossils not just a handful of examples recently discovered.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Similarly I was a long time staunch atheist. while studying computer science, I worked on a simulation to demonstrate the power of natural selection.. Lots of problems emerged that I had always dismissed when given as arguments from skeptics. More and more heavy handed tweaks were needed to make the simulation produce the desired result- even in the best of circumstances.. That's obviously very brief, anecdotal, inconclusive, but at the very least I proved to myself that the process was not nearly as inevitable as I'd imagined, and as I think many people do.

I think perhaps like Newton's formerly 'immutable' laws, evolution appears so elegant, complete, problems in the details are easily dismissed as aberrations.

 

[Sapiens]

...

Over the course of billions of years it seems to me there would be literally tons of fossils not just a handful of examples recently discovered.

When it comes to fossils, time is a double edged sword. Sure, there's been lots of time to lay down fossils, but in that time how much of the crust has been subducted and melted, eroded or submerged?

 

[Sapiens]

...

I think perhaps like Newton's formerly 'immutable' laws, evolution appears so elegant, complete, problems in the details are easily dismissed as aberrations.

You're missing the point. Evolution is without question, the details are not dismissed as aberrations, nor are there any details that contradict the core theory. There are details that are being argued, but isn't that true of every major scientific field, that's how things are advanced.

 

[metis]

Many people tend to add misleading and sometimes incorrect attachments to the basic axiom that is "evolution", defined biologically. Unless I indicated otherwise, here's the definition I preferred to give to my anthropology students: "Genetic changes over time whereas eventually new species may emerge".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're missing the point. Evolution is without question, the details are not dismissed as aberrations, nor are there any details that contradict the core theory. There are details that are being argued, but isn't that true of every major scientific field, that's how things are advanced.

Newton's laws were universally accepted as immutable without question, evolution is not even a majority belief yet, younger and less well established.
'without question' is not a very scientific approach is it?

 

[JerryL]

I don't see how hybrids and interbreeding can be called evolution of new species. Please explain, I am willing to learn.

Because the result was a new species?

With the possible exception of Drosophila, I didn't mention hybrids. I gave examples of speciation... the formation of a new species from a population of an existing species. Literal, observed, speciation within recorded history (and in at least some cases, within a human lifetime).

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems to me that there should be an abundance of evidence: a great deal more than what we have now.

Otherwise you are correct that I am biased. Having once been an atheist & essentially Darwinian naturalist, but now a christian I have found that the evidence I once saw as compelling is no longer so compelling. I see the evidence of evolution as requiring more faith than to believe in God.

Out of curiosity, why do you see Evolution as a matter involving faith?

 

[LuisDantas]

Newton's laws were universally accepted as immutable without question, evolution is not even a majority belief yet, younger and less well established.
'without question' is not a very scientific approach is it?

Evolution is not a matter of belief at all. It is a scientific theory, well beyond belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is not a matter of belief at all. It is a scientific theory, well beyond belief.

scientific theory... , you mean like static/ eternal universe theory, Big Crunch theory?

do you mean to say that it was totally made up without any real evidence and has been thoroughly debunked ?

 

[LuisDantas]

scientific theory... , you mean like static/ eternal universe theory, Big Crunch theory?

In some ways. But the Theory of Evolution is supported by a lot more and more accessible evidence. It has also been put to practical application quite often.

It boggles the mind that there are educated people who actually claim not to believe in it, truth be told. Or even that claim to believe in it.

do you mean to say that it was totally made up without any real evidence and has been thoroughly debunked ?

Of course not. I am not fond of libel and slander. Are you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It boggles the mind that there are educated people who actually claim not to believe in it,

that's pretty much what Hoyle said about Lemaitre not believing in a eternal/static universe. He similarly slandered his 'primordial atom' as 'big bang'- theistic nonsense, some called it repugnant, absurd.

Most people don't believe in evolution, if you find most people's beliefs mind boggling, maybe you don't understand them?

 

[JerryL]

scientific theory... , you mean like static/ eternal universe theory, Big Crunch theory?

Actually no. The reason "the theory of Big Crunch" sounds so odd is because it doesn't show up.

Big Bang, Big Crunch (or as HHGttG calls it: "Gnab gib") is usually, in the literature I can find, referred to as a "scenario".

Unlike a proper theory (Theory of Evolution), even a proper theory that was incomplete (Theory of Gravity).

Theories are rarely entirely incorrect; though often require revision. The theory of evolution specifically contains a large number of heavily tested predictions which have proven true.

 

[JerryL]

Most people don't believe in evolution, if you find most people's beliefs mind boggling, maybe you don't understand them?

You mean like how it used to be that most people didn't believe in heliocentricism; or before that most people didn't believe in a round Earth?

There's a reason that "Appeal to Popularity" shows up on lists of logical fallacies.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You mean like how it used to be that most people didn't believe in heliocentricism; or before that most people didn't believe in a round Earth?

There's a reason that "Appeal to Popularity" shows up on lists of logical fallacies.

was Geocentricism mind boggling?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The reason "the theory of Big Crunch" sounds so odd is because

it's usually called Big Crunch Theory, theory of Big Bang sounds a bit silly too doesn't it?

 

[JerryL]

was Geocentricism mind boggling?

Holding to the belief after the theory of heliocentricism had disproven it was.