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

[Monk Of Reason]

How so?

You said "As to a change in 'kinds', that is easy to provide - recently a species of yeast was observed to undergo a change in phyla as it transitioned from a single celled to a multi-celled organism."

This is what you were trying to prove. All you showed was an already existing characteristic of brewer's yeast being selectively bred, this is not a change of kinds, which is literally what you were claiming to have demonstrated.

It is a change in species. However the mobile goalpost of what a kind is however is not possible to observe in a single lifetime without looking at past evidence. For example I have had people say they can believe that all kinds of cat from housecats to tigers and lynx to lions are all one "kind". And if they cannot see that as a difference of speciation then I don't think anyone would ever convince them it was possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not quite true. The laws are not broken in so much as that they are no longer correct but they are now only correct within defined parameters and certain new parts of equations must be added for it to remain factually true for specific scenarios.

However biology and evolution is far more well known than the ideas of advanced physics. We all know that we know very little and scientists even more so about how little we know about the laws of the universe. However in matters of biology we are able to draw more accurate and conclusive scientific opinions on the world as we know how it works. Abiogensis for example however would be a difficult tree to climb.

Though again no one believed that physics was broken till it was broken and an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary was presented. So in the same way we should assume that what we know of evolution is as correct as we think it is till we find overwhelming, or even some, evidence against that line of thinking. To simply assume that a theory is wrong is not only pointless but also asinine.

But what are the overwhelming bits of evidence you feel contradict evolution to the point you are convinced that it is wrong? Do you feel the same way about gravity? Or heliocentric orbits?

The very essence of classical physics was that there were certain immutable laws which the entire universe adhered to, that were adequate to account for everything in the physical universe. For some this supported the atheist view that, there were no inherently mysterious or unpredictable forces, that nature's finely meshed cogs made God redundant.

So to, evolution is invariably touted as being a simple set of rules adequate to account for all life on Earth and so makes God redundant.


As stated, the crucial reason classical physics utterly failed to account for the physical world, was entropy. By simple laws alone, atoms and the universe would collapse into it's simplest state- the physical world requires excruciatingly finely balanced instructions, a blueprint to guide it on specific productive, functional paths with emergent properties.

Evolution is exactly the same, random mutation and natural selection alone utterly fails to account for the living world we see around us, without very specific information guiding life towards specific goals, the simple laws alone would result similarly in the simplest blob of replicators.

And for these instructions to just happen to create a single sentient being among millions , that is capable of appreciating it all.... by pure chance... it's not technically impossible I suppose, but hardly a safe assumption give the staggering improbabilities.


gravity and heliocentric orbits- yes, a perfect example of something once superficially considered simple, immutable, intuitive, yet turned out to be a product of very complex,finely tuned information specific to producing this result

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It is a change in species. However the mobile goalpost of what a kind is however is not possible to observe in a single lifetime without looking at past evidence.

I agree that what a 'kind' is put forward quite vaguely by the creationist camp, mostly due to it not being defined in the Bible itself, so they can't really know themselves. Their common definition (for now at least) is that "kind" more or less refers to the "family" classification of the animal kingdom.

Though I wonder, did the yeast even change species? Once again, this characteristic is already known in yeast, they clump together like this, all that has been done is weeding out the ones that don't clump together as much, ending with a population of multicellular organisms. Doesn't sound like some great evidence to me.

 

[McBell]

I believe there is no doubt. So I suppose that means you think one pot evolved from the other?

I believe it is a false analogy.
No different than the failed watchmaker.

 

[McBell]

Usually what I hear on Christian radio are facts on co-dependency. Co-dependency is a real problem for evolution.

What specific facts do you believe support creation/ID?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As stated, the crucial reason classical physics utterly failed to account for the physical world, was entropy. By simple laws alone, atoms and the universe would collapse into it's simplest state- the physical world requires excruciatingly finely balanced instructions, a blueprint to guide it on specific productive, functional paths with emergent properties.

Evolution is exactly the same, random mutation and natural selection alone utterly fails to account for the living world we see around us, without very specific information guiding life towards specific goals, the simple laws alone would result similarly in the simplest blob of replicators.

And for these instructions to just happen to create a single sentient being among millions , that is capable of appreciating it all.... by pure chance... it's not technically impossible I suppose, but hardly a safe assumption give the staggering improbabilities.

How excatly does it not account for the life around us? By all measurable standards it does so beautifully.

gravity and heliocentric orbits- yes, a perfect example of something once superficially considered simple, immutable, intuitive, yet turned out to be a product of very complex,finely tuned information specific to producing this result

Do you think the current set of information we know about these objects are fundamentally flawed right now? What is not fundamentally flawed if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How excatly does it not account for the life around us? By all measurable standards it does so beautifully.


Do you think the current set of information we know about these objects are fundamentally flawed right now? What is not fundamentally flawed if you don't mind me asking?

by all measurable standards, so did classical physics.. until you compare the model with observed reality.

again, the simple model alone be it classical physics or classical evolution, collapses under entropy. simple physical laws do not produce beautiful solar systems and planets, they collapse. Because that is the only result of gravity alone

Simple evolutionary laws do likewise, they create at best a single monopolistic homogenous mass of replicators, because it's driving force, it's ultimate 'goal' is to simply reproduce, not create sentience, conscious thought, beautiful music, art, love- that has to be specifically written into underlying instructions one way or another

 

[McBell]

The very essence of classical physics was that there were certain immutable laws which the entire universe adhered to, that were adequate to account for everything in the physical universe. For some this supported the atheist view that, there were no inherently mysterious or unpredictable forces, that nature's finely meshed cogs made God redundant.

So to, evolution is invariably touted as being a simple set of rules adequate to account for all life on Earth and so makes God redundant.


As stated, the crucial reason classical physics utterly failed to account for the physical world, was entropy. By simple laws alone, atoms and the universe would collapse into it's simplest state- the physical world requires excruciatingly finely balanced instructions, a blueprint to guide it on specific productive, functional paths with emergent properties.

Evolution is exactly the same, random mutation and natural selection alone utterly fails to account for the living world we see around us, without very specific information guiding life towards specific goals, the simple laws alone would result similarly in the simplest blob of replicators.

And for these instructions to just happen to create a single sentient being among millions , that is capable of appreciating it all.... by pure chance... it's not technically impossible I suppose, but hardly a safe assumption give the staggering improbabilities.


gravity and heliocentric orbits- yes, a perfect example of something once superficially considered simple, immutable, intuitive, yet turned out to be a product of very complex,finely tuned information specific to producing this result

I wonder, is your god as worried as you about his alleged "redundancy"?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

by all measurable standards, so did classical physics.. until you compare the model with observed reality.

and what reality that is observed conflicts with evolution?

again, the simple model alone be it classical physics or classical evolution, collapses under entropy. simple physical laws do not produce beautiful solar systems and planets, they collapse. Because that is the only result of gravity alone

Old school classical darwinian evolution yes. But our current understanding of evolution and its processes is not what I would call "simple'. The more we learn the more we learn about evolution but so far nothing in conflict. Physical laws did create the solar system. Biological phenomenon created the diversity of life.

Simple evolutionary laws do likewise, they create at best a single monopolistic homogenous mass of replicators, because it's driving force, it's ultimate 'goal' is to simply reproduce, not create sentience, conscious thought, beautiful music, art, love- that has to be specifically written into underlying instructions one way or another

I think your understanding of evolution is a bit simplistic rather than evolution being simplistic itself.

 

[Mycroft]

The Peppered Moth is a classic example of observable evolution.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The Peppered Moth is a classic example of observable evolution.

*natural selection, or microevolution, as the creationist would say

 

[ADigitalArtist]

*natural selection, or microevolution, as the creationist would say

There really is no discernible difference from the process of microevolution and macroevolution. Sexually isolated populations over time will accumulate enough small differences in inheritable genetic material to equal genetic incompatibility. Different selective forces and breeding frequency will cause this process to be slower or faster, but creationists to my knowledge have yet to find any sort of roadblock that would prevent the former from becoming the latter.

 

[gnostic]

The very essence of classical physics was that there were certain immutable laws which the entire universe adhered to, that were adequate to account for everything in the physical universe. For some this supported the atheist view that, there were no inherently mysterious or unpredictable forces, that nature's finely meshed cogs made God redundant.

So to, evolution is invariably touted as being a simple set of rules adequate to account for all life on Earth and so makes God redundant.


As stated, the crucial reason classical physics utterly failed to account for the physical world, was entropy. By simple laws alone, atoms and the universe would collapse into it's simplest state- the physical world requires excruciatingly finely balanced instructions, a blueprint to guide it on specific productive, functional paths with emergent properties.

Evolution is exactly the same, random mutation and natural selection alone utterly fails to account for the living world we see around us, without very specific information guiding life towards specific goals, the simple laws alone would result similarly in the simplest blob of replicators.

And for these instructions to just happen to create a single sentient being among millions , that is capable of appreciating it all.... by pure chance... it's not technically impossible I suppose, but hardly a safe assumption give the staggering improbabilities.


gravity and heliocentric orbits- yes, a perfect example of something once superficially considered simple, immutable, intuitive, yet turned out to be a product of very complex,finely tuned information specific to producing this result

Why do you keep doing that?

Physics and biology are two branches of science. And evolution is a field in biology; evolution isn't a field of physics.

Evolution, and for that matter, other fields of biology, only concentrate on biological life on Earth, and have nothing to life in other planets in some other parts of the universe. Biology is not concerned with the universe or how the universe came to be, because biology is not about cosmology.

If you want to make any comparison with evolution, then you should be comparing evolution with different field(s) IN BIOLOGY.

Comparing evolution to the cosmology of the universe, is like comparing a fish to a doorknob.

 

[gnostic]

agree that what a 'kind' is put forward quite vaguely by the creationist camp, mostly due to it not being defined in the Bible itself, so they can't really know themselves. Their common definition (for now at least) is that "kind" more or less refers to the "family" classification of the animal kingdom.

This is because the Bible is not a book on biology. It doesn't specify what kind it is, and it certain classify any family.

You (and other creationists) are simply reading in too much into Genesis creation and flood myths, and using circular reasoning, argument from gaps and confirmation bias, to apologetic twist both biblical myths and science together.

 

[Mycroft]

*natural selection, or microevolution, as the creationist would say

Microevolution is still evolution. And if organisms can evolve on a small scale, then they can evolve on a larger scale, too.

Just like if god can perform small miracles, he can perform big miracles, but both are considered miracles.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do you keep doing that?

Physics and biology are two branches of science. And evolution is a field in biology; evolution isn't a field of physics.

Evolution, and for that matter, other fields of biology, only concentrate on biological life on Earth, and have nothing to life in other planets in some other parts of the universe. Biology is not concerned with the universe or how the universe came to be, because biology is not about cosmology.

If you want to make any comparison with evolution, then you should be comparing evolution with different field(s) IN BIOLOGY.

Comparing evolution to the cosmology of the universe, is like comparing a fish to a doorknob.

branches are all connected to the same tree, an evolutionist should know that

what life in other parts of the universe? we have an ear on an entire galaxy and we hear nothing but silence

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Peppered Moth is a classic example of observable evolution.

a moth changing color... is that the best one?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

*natural selection, or microevolution, as the creationist would say

selection, adaptation of course, that's unavoidable. By evolution's rationale, the fact a computer virus can adapt, suggests that it adapted itself into existence from scratch

 

[outhouse]

a moth changing color... is that the best one?

You could read evolution wiki yourself and search.

You wont believe anything we tell you no matter how well sourced and how credible the information is.

Either way, evolution is fact and has been observed many times.

No it is not the best one, just one of many.

 

[outhouse]

suggests that it adapted itself into existence from scratch

400000 years in the ocean is a long time for chemistry to happen.


But thanks for being typical, and bringing abiogenesis into a evolution debate. We expect no less.