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

[Muffled]

It is utterly embarrassing to read creationist - speaking science. Did you flunk chemistry and biology?

What does carbon dioxide and sodium nitrate have to do with evolution?

No one here has suggest converting carbon dioxide to sodium nitrate, or vice versa, only you just did. You are attacking strawman with your ignorance.

There is no way any chemical reaction to transform one chemical compound to another. It is impossible because they (compounds) are unrelated.

Beside that, it is not "EVOLUTION" what you are claiming. What you are claiming, is impossible, illogical and only show you have no understanding of chemistry, let alone biochemistry.

If you don't understand chemistry, then ask help, seek reliable sources (read, learn and understand), and whatever you do, never make up unsupported and unsupportable claims, because it will only make you look ignorant and a liar.



Do you really go in that direction?

Myth often involve story of god(s), magic and the supernatural.

First: Evolution is simply BIOLOGY that explained changes through inheritance of genes (hence genetics) over not just a couple of generations of a single family, but a number of generations, over population of organisms. Evolution is supported by observable evidences.

Second: Evolution is not about the origin of first life. If you are looking for when life first began, then you you should looking at abiogenesis, not evolution.

Do you really want to know is "myth" in creationism?

1. Myth is believing that God somehow made an adult human out of dust from the ground (Genesis 2:7). That's a myth.
   
2. Myth is believing in God making adult woman from man's rib (Genesis 2:21-22).
3. Myth is believing that a serpent can talk in human voice (Genesis 3). That's fable.

It magic or supernatural.

You said it yourself. Genes are building blocks for life. If that's the case, then I will ask you a simple question, since you think you know everything.

If God made man out of dust, then does this "dust" contain genes or DNA?

I believe I am not a creationist from a science background but out of an understanding of how things work. I passed all my science courses at the high school level which only gives me a basic understanding. I have read a little about black holes and the human genome. I also had a course in anthropolgy in college which introduced the theory of evolution and I passed that as well.

I beleive I am pointing out that different chemicals can have the same elements without having evolved from one another as an example of how different organisms can have the same genes without having evolved from one another. For another example a builder does not evolve a building but usually buildings are built with similar structures. For instance a two by four can be used in many different styles of building.

I don't believe I suggested any such thing. It would be atni-thetical to what I believe.

I don't believe that means that all mythology involves those things and it is not those things that define mythology.

I don't see any evidence of this. i beleive mostly this is speculation.

Please read post #611.

I believe the person represented by the serpent was Hel/Loki who reputedly was a shapeshifter. We have no current evidence of shapeshifting so it falls in the area of myth but that does not mean that such a thing never existed.

I believe both exist.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I believe I am not a creationist....

For another example, a builder does not evolve a building but usually buildings are built with similar structures.

 

[gnostic]

I beleive I am pointing out that different chemicals can have the same elements without having evolved from one another as an example of how different organisms can have the same genes without having evolved from one another. For another example a builder does not evolve a building but usually buildings are built with similar structures. For instance a two by four can be used in many different styles of building.

My problem with your post was the very poor example you gave in chemistry, in which doesn't remotely demonstrate how evolution works.

No one would use sodium nitrate and carbon dioxide - two different completely compounds - as example of evolution, because biological evolution showed slow incremental changes to the genes, from one generation to the next. In biology, though there may be some very slight different in genes from one generation to the next, it may not show any different of physical appearance.

Evolution doesn't always mean speciation, especially in smaller number of generations. It is possible for change to occurred at genetic level with changing into different species.

A better example would have been if you use just two elements, say carbon and oxygen. Then just any combination of just those two elements, to make different compounds.

Example like carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). They are not the same gases, but they do have the same types of atoms or elements, in the compound. They are both poisonous to human, at certain concentration. The difference is that carbon is not bound to two oxygen atoms in carbon monoxide; the carbon is double-bonded to a single oxygen. This would have been a better example of what evolution is like when comparing to chemistry.

I am no expert in chemistry (so I could be wrong about this), but carbon monoxide won't naturally convert into carbon dioxide, or vice versa, but it could possibly happened in lab condition. Carbon monoxide usually occurred when something organic (like tree) or inorganic (like graphite) are burnt with limited amount of oxygen, which release carbon monoxide.

If I understand correctly, chemical reaction is caused by two or more different elements, molecules or compound being mixed, to produce new chemical compounds (or even elements). It will either bind the two together, or unbind them, or even do both.

There are literally thousands of examples you could have used, but you have picked a very poor example, of two different chemical compounds.

Would like another example - a better example?

Try bronze. The chemical composition of bronze is copper and tin. You have two different metals. With the right heat, and the right ratio of copper and tin, you can produce bronze, an alloy metal of two distinct metals. If you use zinc instead of tin, you will get alloy of brass.

This is better example than your carbon dioxide and sodium nitrate, because it is more similar to evolution than your poor example.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I believe I am not a creationist from a science background but out of an understanding of how things work. I passed all my science courses at the high school level which only gives me a basic understanding. I have read a little about black holes and the human genome. I also had a course in anthropolgy in college which introduced the theory of evolution and I passed that as well.

I beleive I am pointing out that different chemicals can have the same elements without having evolved from one another as an example of how different organisms can have the same genes without having evolved from one another. For another example a builder does not evolve a building but usually buildings are built with similar structures. For instance a two by four can be used in many different styles of building.

I don't believe I suggested any such thing. It would be atni-thetical to what I believe.

I don't believe that means that all mythology involves those things and it is not those things that define mythology.

I don't see any evidence of this. i beleive mostly this is speculation.

Please read post #611.

I believe the person represented by the serpent was Hel/Loki who reputedly was a shapeshifter. We have no current evidence of shapeshifting so it falls in the area of myth but that does not mean that such a thing never existed.

I believe both exist.

If you have a basic understanding of the sciences then do you simply not believe them?

And its not that we are simply made of the same structures therefore we are the same but we have a long line of observed fossil changes that allow us to track the evolution. Then we discovered DNA and mapped it out. We found that not only are we incredibly similar but we have a vast amount of unused DNA that has been turned "off" that we should never have had in the first place if we were designed. Why do we have DNA for a tail? Why do we have DNA for gills? Why do we have DNA for ape-like fur? Why do whales have two tiny legs that are functionally useless because it has evolved a fin?

 

[Muffled]

I believe I now know how it feels to be quoted out of context, lol.

 

[gnostic]

First: Evolution is simply BIOLOGY that explained changes through inheritance of genes (hence genetics) over not just a couple of generations of a single family, but a number of generations, over population of organisms. Evolution is supported by observable evidences.

I don't see any evidence of this. i beleive mostly this is speculation.

What are you saying?

That evolution is not biology?

That reproduction and inheriting specific traits from parents or ancestors don't happen?

Can you be more specific and clarify why you think evidences for evolution can be ignored?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

there is no disproving evolution

then it's unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

 

[metis]

then it's unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

That's not correct as things have been both added and subtracted from the ToE as the decades have rolled on. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it's often hard for some of us to understand why at least the basics are not accepted by some people.

I may have posted this before, so pardon me if I'm just being repetitive. I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught the evolution was an evil concept, but even before I graduated from high school in 1963 it became apparent to me the basic concept of evolution had to be real because of the overwhelming evidence.

I left that church because of this and a couple of other reasons, and eventually found one that didn't teach me to go through life with blinders on. I went on to do my undergraduate work in anthropology, history, and sociology, and then my graduate work in anthropology. I taught that subject for 30 years.

I quickly learned that many of my students came into my course with predetermined positions, with about 1/3 being anti-evolution. After 30 years of teaching the subject, averaging 2-3 classes per semester, only one student in confidential surveys at the end of the course said (s)he still didn't believe in evolution.

Now, either I'm maybe the worlds greatest salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and let me suggest that it's certainly the latter. My experience is that those who took the anti-evolution position either tended to believe in things that relate to the ToE as "facts" that actually aren't facts at all, or that they pretty much, like myself, had been brainwashed into believing that evolution is counter to a belief in God, which it certainly is not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

then it's unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

What he means is not that it is an unfalsifiable theory but that the theory is so complete and so well established that there is effectively 0% chance that we are wrong. I say effectively because science, just as Jedi, do not deal with absolutes. There are rare cases where science ventures to the dark side but those are far and in-between.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Evolution and Athiesm are synonymous and one and the same. Athiesm uses Evolution as an ardent sword to defend their faith.

Incorrect. They are not "one in the same." I believe in evolution, but I am a Deist, not an Atheist. Also, many non-fundamentalist Christians believe in evolution as well, and have made official statements showing their support, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the United Methodist Church, to name a few.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe that means that all mythology involves those things and it is not those things that define mythology.

Sure it is not only ones.

Mythology may also encompassed the following, below:

1. fable (story that has meaning of morals, and usually include animals that can talk, like Eden's serpent, or the talking snake and eagle in the Old Babylonian Epic of Etana),and fable are like parables, are allegory;
   
2. or story of cultural hero (like Heracles who supposedly found the Olympic games, and "cultural" that could be of religious nature, like Moses, establishing religious practices, customs, law, etc);
3. or of national hero (like the biblical Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David, or Aeneas and Romulus whom founded Rome);
   
4. or myth that are made like they were "historical", like the examples I have given in point 3. This myth is called "euhemerism".
5. or myth of object or place, which are personification of god, spirit, demon or even fairy, (like the sun, moon, river, sea were respective personifications of Helios, Selene, Scamander (river god of Troy) and Pontus);
6. name places, there are plenty of places in which there are myths of where the names of cities, towns, rivers, wells, etc, came from.

Both myths of cultural heroes or national heroes fall under the category of "foundation myth" or "hero myth".

And of course, there are the usual stories of god or gods, and creation (hence creation myth).

Unlike most stories, myths have dynamicism, in which can affect changes to older story. Different times, places, different authors, can cause myth to change. Story can change and have changed. Characters can change and have changed.

I believe the person represented by the serpent was Hel/Loki who reputedly was a shapeshifter. We have no current evidence of shapeshifting so it falls in the area of myth but that does not mean that such a thing never existed.

And that doesn't help me or convince me that the story of Eden to be more than just myth or fable.

Shape-shifting fall in the realm of the supernatural, folklore or myth.

There are no evidences for shape-shifting, because it is either superstition or just wild imagination.

People here, may think that I hate the bible, especially the stories in Genesis, because I often use them to demonstrate that they (stories) are myths than history, but this is not wholly true.

If anything, the Genesis is my favourite book out of the entire bible. The Genesis is a brilliant piece of storytelling, despite some of its inconsistencies and it being illogical, unscientific or pseudo-historical. That doesn't matter.

The Genesis creation, flood and the tower of babel, shouldn't be taken literally true, as if it was "historical" or "scientific". The values of Genesis come from not literalism, but from moral meanings found in the story.

But of course, I am more interested in the storytelling.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not correct as things have been both added and subtracted from the ToE as the decades have rolled on. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it's often hard for some of us to understand why at least the basics are not accepted by some people.

I may have posted this before, so pardon me if I'm just being repetitive. I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught the evolution was an evil concept, but even before I graduated from high school in 1963 it became apparent to me the basic concept of evolution had to be real because of the overwhelming evidence.

I left that church because of this and a couple of other reasons, and eventually found one that didn't teach me to go through life with blinders on. I went on to do my undergraduate work in anthropology, history, and sociology, and then my graduate work in anthropology. I taught that subject for 30 years.

I quickly learned that many of my students came into my course with predetermined positions, with about 1/3 being anti-evolution. After 30 years of teaching the subject, averaging 2-3 classes per semester, only one student in confidential surveys at the end of the course said (s)he still didn't believe in evolution.

Now, either I'm maybe the worlds greatest salesman or the evidence speaks for itself, and let me suggest that it's certainly the latter. My experience is that those who took the anti-evolution position either tended to believe in things that relate to the ToE as "facts" that actually aren't facts at all, or that they pretty much, like myself, had been brainwashed into believing that evolution is counter to a belief in God, which it certainly is not.

the acceptance is about 20% in the US according to Gallup, in a country where most people are brain.. I mean 'taught' evolution as fact. So apparently the evidence is not all that overwhelming.

I was one of those students ,

With minds at an impressionable age + the peer pressure of a class room and necessity of passing exams, it takes an extraordinarily individual mind to go against the grain. I didn't question it until I looked into it in more detail myself.

Similarly not many students questioned classical physics and static universes when and where those were taught as fact- concepts of specific creation events and fundamentally unpredictable nature were unscientific religious ideas with no place in a science class.

Classical physics was based on 'overwhelming evidence' - so overwhelming it was considered 'immutable law'. Yet as an explanation for the physical world around us, it turned out to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. So too I think with evolution.
No theory is beyond questioning, that is the fundamentally unscientific approach

 

[metis]

the acceptance is about 20% in the US according to Gallup, in a country where most people are brain.. I mean 'taught' evolution as fact. So apparently the evidence is not all that overwhelming.

I was one of those students ,

With minds at an impressionable age + the peer pressure of a class room and necessity of passing exams, it takes an extraordinarily individual mind to go against the grain. I didn't question it until I looked into it in more detail myself.

Similarly not many students questioned classical physics and static universes when and where those were taught as fact- concepts of specific creation events and fundamentally unpredictable nature were unscientific religious ideas with no place in a science class.

Classical physics was based on 'overwhelming evidence' - so overwhelming it was considered 'immutable law'. Yet as an explanation for the physical world around us, it turned out to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. So too I think with evolution.
No theory is beyond questioning, that is the fundamentally unscientific approach

You have managed to distort what I was saying. First of all, the acceptance of evolution in the States runs closer to 50% than 20%. Secondly, the basic ToE very much is considered "fact" by the vast majority of scientists worldwide. Thirdly, I never stated nor do I believe that even something with as much evidence as the ToE shouldn't be questioned, so all you're doing is putting words in my mouth. Fourthly, these "impressionable" students were mostly in their late teens and were in a college-prep class. Fifthly, there was no "peer pressure" on the confidential surveys, which I had collected by a student and shuffled.

Finally, I am not a dishonest person, but your approach with this above post of yours definitely makes me question yours.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have managed to distort what I was saying. First of all, the acceptance of evolution in the States runs closer to 50% than 20%. Secondly, the basic ToE very much is considered "fact" by the vast majority of scientists worldwide. Thirdly, I never stated nor do I believe that even something with as much evidence as the ToE shouldn't be questioned, so all you're doing is putting words in my mouth. Fourthly, these "impressionable" students were mostly in their late teens and were in a college-prep class. Fifthly, there was no "peer pressure" on the confidential surveys, which I had collected by a student and shuffled.

Finally, I am not a dishonest person, but your approach with this above post of yours definitely makes me question yours.

the 50% figure includes guided by God, & we both know this sort of intelligent design is not the evolution that is taught in schools. The very essence of the taught theory is that natural processes, random mutations alone are adequate. Belief in this came in at 19% in the most recent Gallup poll, I'm sure others differ- but the point is that apparently most are not convinced by the 'overwhelming' evidence.

I assume this was an honest mistake on your part because I do not question your integrity one bit. Ad hominem attacks never make for a very interesting discussion

getting back to substance..

The reason classical physics failed is a fundamental problem shared with evolution, entropy. Newtons laws very elegant, simple, it was very tempting to assume they were a complete answer. 'overwhelming evidence' as you put it. But therein lies the problem, the laws were too simple to combat entropy, without further highly specific mathematical instructions guiding matter and hence the entire structure of the universe, atomic particles would not maintain an orbit, the entire universe collapses into a homogenous blob, such is the result of unopposed entropy.

random mutations alone produce the same result

 

[metis]

the 50% figure includes guided by God, & we both know this sort of intelligent design is not the evolution that is taught in schools...

Well, guess again. Not only did I cover "theistic evolution", I also brought in a Baptist minister or deacon from a nearby church for each class to give the anti-evolutionary position, and I did not interrupt of argue with him in any way. The deacon and I actually became good friends, although he eventually left the faith, although I don't know why.

I assume this was an honest mistake on your part because I do not question your integrity one bit. Ad hominem attacks never make for a very interesting discussion

When someone puts words in someone else's mouth that they did not state nor imply, which is what you did, that's being dishonest. You can try and song-and-dance this all you want to try and make it look like it's my fault in some way, but that in and of itself is just another dishonest tactic.

The reason classical physics failed is a fundamental problem shared with evolution, entropy. Newtons laws very elegant, simple, it was very tempting to assume they were a complete answer. 'overwhelming evidence' as you put it. But therein lies the problem, the laws were too simple to combat entropy, without further highly specific mathematical instructions guiding matter and hence the entire structure of the universe, atomic particles would not maintain an orbit, the entire universe collapses into a homogenous blob, such is the result of unopposed entropy.

Entropy literally has nothing to do with the basic ToE, and the study of atomic and sub-atomic particles, as well as various hypotheses as to the cause of the Big Bang and the future of our universe, is still very much a work-in-progress.

random mutations alone produce the same result

I don't know what you're saying here.

 

[JerryL]

the 50% figure includes guided by God, & we both know this sort of intelligent design is not the evolution that is taught in schools.

The guidance is not taught in schools... but the evolution is.

Since a great number of the scientists who write those books are, themselves, theistic evolutionists; you are wrong.

You might as well say that no one is a creationist because of how they differ in the details of creation.

The very essence of the taught theory is that natural processes, random mutations alone are adequate. Belief in this came in at 19% in the most recent Gallup poll, I'm sure others differ- but the point is that apparently most are not convinced by the 'overwhelming' evidence.

There's a combination of ignorance, willful ignorance, confirmation bias, and simple religious denial going on.

Helio-centracism was not well accepted early on either, even though the evidence was accessable.

The reason classical physics failed is a fundamental problem shared with evolution, entropy.

Nope. Nothing in either contradicts the other. I don't think you understand entropy.

Newtons laws very elegant, simple, it was very tempting to assume they were a complete answer. 'overwhelming evidence' as you put it. But therein lies the problem, the laws were too simple to combat entropy, without further highly specific mathematical instructions guiding matter and hence the entire structure of the universe, atomic particles would not maintain an orbit, the entire universe collapses into a homogenous blob, such is the result of unopposed entropy.

Please provide the math to prove your assertion.

But it's good to know you deny physics too and not just biology.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know what you're saying here.

sub atomic particles were a big nail in the coffin for classical physics, they didn't obey the laws, modeling the laws did not match observed reality- that's not really controversial today.

similarly the attractively simple superficial laws of evolution don't match the observed reality, they also tend towards the simplest homogenous state just as matter under classical physics.

 

[metis]

sub atomic particles were a big nail in the coffin for classical physics, they didn't obey the laws, modeling the laws did not match observed reality- that's not really controversial today.

It's been known for decades now that mega-matter and sub-atomic particles operate under different "rules". They actually do probably "obey the laws" but not the laws that mega-matter operate by. It's almost like going from one country to another and seeing that some of the laws are different.

similarly the attractively simple superficial laws of evolution don't match the observed reality, they also tend towards the simplest homogenous state just as matter under classical physics.

Much like the varying laws between mega-matter and sub-atomic particles, the evolutionary process is quite complex, but this has been known for many decades now. If you buy a copy of Scientific American, hardly one issue will go by before it reporting some relatively new information about genetics and how it affects the evolutionary process.

There's no indication of any "homogenous state", unless you're using the terminology different than I'm interpreting it. If anything, on-going evidence suggests wide diversity and complex interactions at different levels dealing with the evolutionary process. As Gandhi used to say, the truth is rarely simple.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

sub atomic particles were a big nail in the coffin for classical physics, they didn't obey the laws, modeling the laws did not match observed reality- that's not really controversial today.

similarly the attractively simple superficial laws of evolution don't match the observed reality, they also tend towards the simplest homogenous state just as matter under classical physics.

The second part is false.

 

[gnostic]

sub atomic particles were a big nail in the coffin for classical physics, they didn't obey the laws, modeling the laws did not match observed reality- that's not really controversial today.

At subatomic level, for sure. And quantum mechanics have done wonders in technology, like constructing increasingly smaller electronic components and nanotechnology.

But Newton's theory on gravity and motion still have not being completely refuted for forces and motions of normal-size and slow-moving objects.

And quantum mechanics don't play well with gravity at astronomical levels, like stars and galaxies, where general relativity play a larger role, especially as these astronomical objects, move closer to the speed of light.

Each field on gravity (Newton, Relativity and Quantum Physics) is correct within the scopes or limitations of their respective fields.

String Theory theorists (including Superstring Theory and M-theory) are trying to combine Relativity and Quantum Physics together, into ONE explanation that explain all, however string theory have proven to be "untestable", so there are no empirical evidences that support the case for String Theory...yet.

You are only partial right. But you must understand, most people's everyday like, don't work or study in areas that deal with subatomic particles or astronomy.

similarly the attractively simple superficial laws of evolution don't match the observed reality, they also tend towards the simplest homogenous state just as matter under classical physics.

And here, you are completely wrong.

There is nothing superficial with the theory on evolution. Our knowledge and the evidences that support to biological evolution are far more complete than that of (physics) mechanics on forces and motion.

Are you a biologist by profession or education? If not, than how are you more certain what they know about biology?