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

[Guy Threepwood]

again though static/ eternal theories had also 'disproven' a beginning to the universe
global cooling of the 70's 'disproved' the global warming scare of the 30's
Newton's laws had 'disproven' any inherently unpredictable physics long before Max Planck was born

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Neither Hoyle nor Lemaitre had a lot of opportunity of testing or employing that idea, though. The ToE is a lot different in that regard.

As for "most people" not believing in evolution, no one should. It is just as weird to believe in evolution as it is to believe in gravity.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

I don't care if you were an atheist at one point in time. If you simply ignore all the abidance of evidence we DO in fact have then I don't see the fruit in arguing with you. Bring one piece of evidence that you feel is not "evidence" and maybe we can talk. Or perhaps you can bring an example of evidence you feel you would need? Other than sitting for thousands of years to see an animal population evolve.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Neither Hoyle nor Lemaitre had a lot of opportunity of testing or employing that idea, though. The ToE is a lot different in that regard.

As for "most people" not believing in evolution, no one should. It is just as weird to believe in evolution as it is to believe in gravity.

Nothing was considered more preposterous by many, more inherently impossible and theistic than a beginning to space and time itself.

we have little means of testing that an amoeba can morph into a horse purely by chance either.


blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself as such. that's why Hoyle could never change his mind.- He had already declared the truth as mind boggling- impossible to believe in...

We all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs, we can change them based on new evidence

 

[JerryL]

again though static/ eternal theories had also 'disproven' a beginning to the universe

They were never proven in the first place.

global cooling of the 70's 'disproved' the global warming scare of the 30's

"Global Cooling" is an invention of the media / global warming deniers. There was never a claim from the scientific community that "Global cooling" was a thing.

From Wiki : "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reportsthat did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature"

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

Newton's laws had 'disproven' any inherently unpredictable physics long before Max Planck was born

Trying to turn lemons into lemonade?

I already explicitly stated that established theories often end up incomplete. Are we no longer believing in gravity? That's news to me.

Relativity didn't make gravity wrong. Relativity expanded the model to cover more scenarios than it already did. And yes. I would be confused by gravity deniers and proponents of intelligent falling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nothing was considered more preposterous by many, more inherently impossible and theistic than a beginning to space and time itself.

I don't think that is at all true, but it matters not. Evolution is an unrelated subject matter.

we have little means of testing that an amoeba can morph into a horse purely by chance either.

We can however make use of the available evidence for speciation, which shows that it is all but completely impossible for such a change to happen - unless you are talking about a very large number of generations, of course.

blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself as such. that's why Hoyle could never change his mind.- He had already declared the truth as mind boggling- impossible to believe in...

Why are you so fixed on that, when it has no connection to the matter of Evolution?

We all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs, we can change them based on new evidence

Probably. But if we are talking about science, that is really not very relevant.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They were never proven in the first place.

"Global Cooling" is an invention of the media / global warming deniers. There was never a claim from the scientific community that "Global cooling" was a thing.

From Wiki : "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reportsthat did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature"


Trying to turn lemons into lemonade?

I already explicitly stated that established theories often end up incomplete. Are we no longer believing in gravity? That's news to me.

Relativity didn't make gravity wrong. Relativity expanded the model to cover more scenarios than it already did. And yes. I would be confused by gravity deniers and proponents of intelligent falling.

well there you are, proof is a teensy bit of a subjective term isn't it? I certainly remember plenty of educated people who considered global cooling utterly proven. When it returns, you can bet support for warming will be walked back also, as it already has been.

But regardless- likewise creationism would not replace natural selection, it would replace the notion that all life developed accidentally, without any plan, guide, blueprint- just as quantum and sub atomic revealed more to physics than the superficial 'simple inevitable' laws which met the eye- an underlying mechanism which determined the very fabric of space/time/energy/mass in a very specific way necessary to form every aspect of our world

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Probably. But if we are talking about science, that is really not very relevant.

maybe this guy summed it up better than I can!

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[Midnight Rain]

Nothing was considered more preposterous by many, more inherently impossible and theistic than a beginning to space and time itself.

we have little means of testing that an amoeba can morph into a horse purely by chance either.


blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself as such. that's why Hoyle could never change his mind.- He had already declared the truth as mind boggling- impossible to believe in...

We all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs, we can change them based on new evidence

First off an Amoeba would not evolve into a horse.

But we do have evidence of evolution. We have mountains of evidence. We don't have evidence of abiogensis however. That is the distinctive notion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First off an Amoeba would not evolve into a horse.

But we do have evidence of evolution. We have mountains of evidence. We don't have evidence of abiogensis however. That is the distinctive notion.

whatever name you'd prefer to give our 'single celled ancestor'

on abiogenesis, do you think God would just plant the first replicator with no particular plan in mind, to be surprised when humans accidentally sprang from it to ponder the meaning of life?

 

[viole]

whatever name you'd prefer to give our 'single celled ancestor'

on abiogenesis, do you think God would just plant the first replicator with no particular plan in mind, to be surprised when humans accidentally sprang from it to ponder the meaning of life?

Well, if He had a plan, it appears He is very fond of apes. For some reason.

Who knows. Maybe He did not like the idea of Himself incarnating into a velociraptor and He finely tweaked the orbit of some asteroids in order to avoid exactly that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, if He had a plan, it appears He is very fond of primates. For some reason.

Who knows. Maybe He did not like the idea of Himself incarnating into a velociraptor and He finely tweaked the orbit of some asteroids in order to avoid exactly that.

Ciao

- viole

who knows, perhaps by complete fluke- an asteroid was exactly aimed, weighted and timed to cleanly remove the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely- leaving mankind with millions of years of the convenient resources we would need to explore and learn about creation.

 

[LuisDantas]

maybe this guy summed it up better than I can!

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

Please don't misuse my statements when you quote me. You know (or should know) that what I mean is that matters of faith are weightless when considering evolution.

 

[viole]

who knows, perhaps by complete fluke- an asteroid was exactly aimed, weighted and timed to cleanly remove the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely- leaving mankind with millions of years of the convenient resources we would need to explore and learn about creation.

Yes, probably you are right. Fne tuning the constants of the universe was not sufficient. A little push on the orbit of an asteroid was also necessary. That is a heck of fine tuning.

Surely, it makes sense.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please don't misuse my statements when you quote me. You know (or should know) that what I mean is that matters of faith are weightless when considering evolution.

As in our examples- the amount of faith people put in theories has always been an important consideration, not acknowledging any only slows scientific progress

 

[Midnight Rain]

whatever name you'd prefer to give our 'single celled ancestor'

on abiogenesis, do you think God would just plant the first replicator with no particular plan in mind, to be surprised when humans accidentally sprang from it to ponder the meaning of life?

We do have evidence we all have a common ancestor and that it was single celled.

My beliefs on gods and goddesses doesn't parallel with monotheistic personifications of god enough to make your question intelligible. The god and goddess are natural beings in the universe and are just as much a part of us as we are of them. The propensity for life was always there but can only happen naturally. I don't believe the god and goddess created us in the same way that the monotheistic cultures tend to think they were "created".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, probably you are right. Fne tuning the constants of the universe was not sufficient. A little push on the orbit of an asteroid was also necessary. That is a heck of fine tuning.

Surely, it makes sense.

Ciao

- viole

no, just yet one more mind boggling coincidence without which we wouldn't be here pondering existence- I'm sure of it!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Fne tuning the constants of the universe was not sufficient.

I don't get this argument. If the tuning had been different then perhaps life would have developed in a different form, or maybe not at all. But so what? The universe doesn't care either way.

 

[JerryL]

well there you are, proof is a teensy bit of a subjective term isn't it? I certainly remember plenty of educated people who considered global cooling utterly proven. When it returns, you can bet support for warming will be walked back also, as it already has been.

It can't return as it was never here.

As I pointed out: the belief by some of the public was the result of first bad journalism then climate deniers. The scientific community never put it forward as a theory.

But regardless- likewise creationism would not replace natural selection, it would replace the notion that all life developed accidentally, without any plan, guide, blueprint- just as quantum and sub atomic revealed more to physics than the superficial 'simple inevitable' laws which met the eye- an underlying mechanism which determined the very fabric of space/time/energy/mass in a very specific way necessary to form every aspect of our world

You aren't discussing what you were a post ago. It's a subject change and attempted straw-man.

On top of everything else: I've provided you with observed speciation. You will obviously chose to continue to believe in ignorance instead of evaluating data.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So did the devil bury all those dinosaur bones just to confuse us?