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

[McBell]

Hawking, Krauss, Linde, reading and thinking, where do you get yours?

or as Krauss puts it, 'if your theory involves an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

Yes our galaxy literally contemplates itself, since we are very much part of that galaxy, made from the fusion reactions of it's stars. And so far apparently alone in that ability...

So what does Krausss say about your "theory" including invisible imaginary friends?

 

[Yerda]

Lemaitre v Hoyle, it's a matter of historical record

sticks and stones..

What is a matter of historical record?

I'm challenge the idea (you appear to hold) that atheism and theism are theories that make predictions.

 

[metis]

I believe Lemaitre and Hoyle tested those predictions a while back, remind me which was validated and which debunked? science v atheism

I has not been "debunked" as there simply is no way to provide evidence to posit a "creator". There are some scientists that are indeed theists, but I would suggest that the majority of them do so on the basis of faith and not objectively-derived evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I has not been "debunked" as there simply is no way to provide evidence to posit a "creator". There are some scientists that are indeed theists, but I would suggest that the majority of them do so on the basis of faith and not objectively-derived evidence.

we covered this in depth already- the atheist static/eternal/steady state/ big crunch (no creation = no creator) theories were all thoroughly debunked where testable, Lemaitre despite being mocked for his contrary 'theistic' creation event - the 'primeval atom', was validated

 

[metis]

we covered this in depth already- the atheist static/eternal/steady state/ big crunch (no creation = no creator) theories were all thoroughly debunked where testable, Lemaitre despite being mocked for his contrary 'theistic' creation event - the 'primeval atom', was validated

Steady-state has indeed been "debunked", but not the "Big Crunch". Most cosmologists lean against it, but it still does have its supporters (see Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

The primary evidence going against the BC is the fact that the universe, not only is still expanding, but doing so at an increasing rate. However, since we know next to nothing about dark energy, there's no way to determine whether that force (or some other) would continue as the expansion itself continues (see article).

 

[Midnight Rain]

we covered this in depth already- the atheist static/eternal/steady state/ big crunch (no creation = no creator) theories were all thoroughly debunked where testable, Lemaitre despite being mocked for his contrary 'theistic' creation event - the 'primeval atom', was validated

None of those theories were promoting a theological viewpoint. They were simply the assumptions and theories made with what evidence they had. After they found more evidence they re-evaluated the situation and will do so again and again and again.

 

[Blackmarch]

Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence" Richard Dawkins.

evolution is the theory that if you have enough small changes over time you eventually end up with something totally different than what you started with.

we've been able to observe the small changes, and DNA, biologic, and fossil studies very strongly suggest that small changes can lead to big changes.... but we havent been around long enough to observe that big of a change in a species development. Yet.

so unless someone can prove that its impossible to end up with something completely different, or something that is more demonstratable alternative to eveolution thats what we'll stick with.

I'm confused...what does learning biology have to do with atheism....?

it doesnt but people like richard dawkins like shohorning it in so then everyone gets the wrong idea.

 

[Nietzsche]

evolution is the theory that if you have enough small changes over time you eventually end up with something totally different than what you started with.

we've been able to observe the small changes, and DNA, biologic, and fossil studies very strongly suggest that small changes can lead to big changes.... but we havent been around long enough to observe that big of a change in a species development. Yet.

so unless someone can prove that its impossible to end up with something completely different, or something that is more demonstratable alternative to eveolution thats what we'll stick with..

No. That is not true. A thing does not become something "totally different". A whale is still an ungulate. A dog is still a wolf. A human is still an ape.

The form changes, some of the attributes change, but you do not get mammals from reptiles. Reptiles AND Mammals all derive from a common ancestor waaaaaaaay back when that was somewhat like both. Dogs & Cats both also derive from a badger-like distant ancestor. They are still in the same grouping.

 

[Blackmarch]

No. That is not true. A thing does not become something "totally different". A whale is still an ungulate. A dog is still a wolf. A human is still an ape.

The form changes, some of the attributes change, but you do not get mammals from reptiles. Reptiles AND Mammals all derive from a common ancestor waaaaaaaay back when that was somewhat like both. Dogs & Cats both also derive from a badger-like distant ancestor. They are still in the same grouping.

yes they are, but you are only using a portion of the evolutionary tree. You haven't included enough time or enough changes. In theory we all come from proto single cell organisms.

Besides, i'm using more layman speak.
If you want to get technical eveything is related because eveything uses the same coding, the only difference is the length what is where in the code. And i'm not saying totally unrelated just extreme difference in form/function between both ends of the line.

 

[Nietzsche]

yes they are, but you are only using a portion of the evolutionary tree. You haven't included enough time or enough changes. In theory we all come from proto single cell organisms.

Besides, i'm using more layman speak.
If you want to get technical eveything is related because eveything uses the same coding, the only difference is the length what is where in the code. And i'm not saying totally unrelated just extreme difference in form/function between both ends of the line.

The problem with explaining it as you did is that it leads to ignorance. It is what births the "why don't cats give birth to birds" or other such stupid arguments.

 

[McBell]

Reptiles AND Mammals all derive from a common ancestor....

Are not mammals and reptiles totally different?

 

[McBell]

The problem with explaining it as you did is that it leads to ignorance. It is what births the "why don't cats give birth to birds" or other such stupid arguments.

Except in order to ask "why don't cats give birth to birds" you have to ignore the whole "enough small changes over time you eventually end up with" part.

 

[Nietzsche]

Are not mammals and reptiles totally different?

They are different. But it is because their common ancestor went down two different paths. They started with the same original creature. For lack of a better term, it started with a creature similar to both.

 

[Blackmarch]

The problem with explaining it as you did is that it leads to ignorance. It is what births the "why don't cats give birth to birds" or other such stupid arguments.

Perhaps
But the principle that i explained seems to be one that is missed or is ignored. thats just explains what evolution is plain and simple.
it does not show how the process is active in nature for that you need the theory of natural selection to drive the process of evolution. DNA knowledge also helps

at least i'd know where they were getting hung up then.

I'd ask them to explain using my logic how to arrive to their conclusion and go from there.

 

[McBell]

They are different. But it is because their common ancestor went down two different paths. They started with the same original creature. For lack of a better term, it started with a creature similar to both.

Does that not show the statement "evolution is the theory that if you have enough small changes over time you eventually end up with something totally different than what you started with." to be correct?

 

[Parsimony]

No. That is not true. A thing does not become something "totally different". A whale is still an ungulate. A dog is still a wolf. A human is still an ape.

The form changes, some of the attributes change, but you do not get mammals from reptiles. Reptiles AND Mammals all derive from a common ancestor waaaaaaaay back when that was somewhat like both. Dogs & Cats both also derive from a badger-like distant ancestor. They are still in the same grouping.

I think that's a matter of semantics and human definitions. Kind of like asking how many straws do you have to remove from a pile before it is no longer a pile.

 

[Nietzsche]

Does that not show the statement "evolution is the theory that if you have enough small changes over time you eventually end up with something totally different than what you started with." to be correct?

It is not totally different. It's two branches of the same thing. It never stops being what it was, you just add a further specification.

 

[McBell]

Kind of like asking how many straws do you have to remove from a pile before it is no longer a pile.

Technically, you do not have to remove any straws.
All you need do is make sure there is not a straw on top of another straw.

 

[metis]

A basic definition I used to give to my anthropology students dealing with the term "evolution" was this: "gradual changes in the genetic code in a species whereas new species may eventually evolve". Then I would throw out what some of us refer to as "mosaiic evolution", namely that "evolution involves different groups within a species, each evolving in their own way, only some of which may evolve to form new species".

 

[McBell]

It is not totally different. It's two branches of the same thing. It never stops being what it was, you just add a further specification.

Guess it depends upon ones interpretation of the rather subjective term "totally different".