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

[outhouse]

Evolution is exactly the same, random mutation and natural selection alone utterly fails to account for the living world we see around us,

Only if you lack a grade school biology education.

Its funny that the rest of us see no problem what so ever.


I think you run into serious problems once you use that critical methodology on your own failed hypothesis, that is outlawed from public schools because they don't teach pseudo science.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

No, even with no knowledge of nature's finely meshed cogs god(s) are only mythical, there is no need to advance an argument from ignorance, all you need to do is shrug and say, "don't know."

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.

Occam's razor is a good thing, religion is a waste of time and energy..

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.

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law
technical reasons 2nd law does not preclude evolution

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.

You are rather obviously wrong, in both theory and reality.

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.

Sentience is not all that you make believe it is.

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

Since it produced the result that is not strange. Had the "tuning" been difference the result would have been different. Stop putting the cart before the bantha.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Of course not, there is no biological classification or definition for 'kind'. It is a change in phyla.

Lets make this simple, what sort of evidence would you like? If you want an example of one species turning into something different - you need to watch Harry Potter movies, not study evolution. Evolution is when one species changes over time, or diverges into two species, Harry Potter is when one species turns into soemthing very different.

 

[Mycroft]

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

I suppose it would depend on whether you're genuinely interested in the possibility of changing your views, or whether you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Sapiens]

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

That's just a classic, here's a passel more: Speciation in real time

 

[shawn001]

we would not be discussing this, if it were not for a perfectly aimed, weighted asteroid surgically removing the physically dominant species that would otherwise rule indefinitely-

so that's just one good example of how 'classical evolution' alone could never create humanity

The asteroid killed the dinosaurs. There was another huge group of animals before them. They got it from the Siberian Traps. But that wiped out 96% of life and all life on Earth evolved from them. Including the dinosaurs up next and then they got it and that lead to the rise of mammals.


Its empirical evidence for evolution. Not to mention your breathing Oxygen because of evolution and not natural gas.

What 'classical evolution' ?

 

[shawn001]

When Whales Had Legs


Before They Were Bears
Giant Prehistoric Bear


Morphed: From Dinosaur to Turkey


Your Inner Fish

With Neil Shubin

How did your body become the complicated, quirky, amazing machine it is today? Anatomist Neil Shubin uncovers the answers in this new look at human evolution. Using fossils, embryos and genes, he reveals how our bodies are the legacy of ancient fish, reptiles and primates — the ancestors you never knew were in your family tree.

Your Inner Fish | PBS

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, even with no knowledge of nature's finely meshed cogs god(s) are only mythical, there is no need to advance an argument from ignorance, all you need to do is shrug and say, "don't know."

that rules out asserting naturalistic causes then. I acknowledge I don't 'know' I acknowledge faith, do you?

Occam's razor is a good thing, religion is a waste of time and energy..

what was the simplest explanation- classical physics and Netwon's laws, or quantum physics and Einsteins relativity?
a static eternal unchanging universe, or a growing changing universe with a specific creation event?

apparently the universe doesn't obey Occam either

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid: 2nd Law
technical reasons 2nd law does not preclude evolution
You are rather obviously wrong, in both theory and reality.
Sentience is not all that you make believe it is.

Since it produced the result that is not strange. Had the "tuning" been difference the result would have been different. Stop putting the cart before the bantha.

it produced it once only, in millions of species and billions of years, so apparently it is very strange- i.e. not the sort of result evolution tends to achieve by chance

had the tuning been infinitesimally different, there would be no space/time energy/matter, far less sentient beings to ponder it!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I suppose it would depend on whether you're genuinely interested in the possibility of changing your views, or whether you're just wasting everyone's time.

well I changed my views once already, so apparently I am, how about you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No, even with no knowledge of nature's finely meshed cogs god(s) are only mythical, there is no need to advance an argument from ignorance, all you need to do is shrug and say, "don't know."

Indeed, and it would be refreshing if more people were able to admit that they really don't know.

 

[Mycroft]

well I changed my views once already, so apparently I am, how about you?

I change my views all the time when the evidence calls for me to do so.

So far no religion has supplied sufficient evidence to make me change my views on the nonexistence of a god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I change my views all the time when the evidence calls for me to do so.

So far no religion has supplied sufficient evidence to make me change my views on the nonexistence of a god.

It's always easier to challenge other people's beliefs than your own. It was the non-existence of any chance spontaneous origin that sparked my skepticism of atheism.

 

[Mycroft]

It's always easier to challenge other people's beliefs than your own. It was the non-existence of any chance spontaneous origin that sparked my skepticism of atheism.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

likewise, until you prove your belief, my belief is right by default... not much of a debate is it?

 

[McBell]

likewise, until you prove your belief, my belief is right by default... not much of a debate is it?

Please be so kind as to let us know when you are going to start debating.

And no, merely presenting your beliefs is not debate.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Of course not, there is no biological classification or definition for 'kind'. It is a change in phyla.

Lets make this simple, what sort of evidence would you like? If you want an example of one species turning into something different - you need to watch Harry Potter movies, not study evolution. Evolution is when one species changes over time, or diverges into two species, Harry Potter is when one species turns into soemthing very different.

Well I'd like something where the critter in question actually gains new genetic information, and isn't selectively bred to just display already-existing characteristics, what sort of change is that?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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.

I'm actually undecided on the whole interpretation of Genesis thing, there are decent arguments from both camps.

A spoonful of skepticism makes the medicine go down though, I've heard.

 

[outhouse]

not much of a debate is it?

Not from you and your denial, of credible education and knowledge, taught in every major university around the whole world as fact, because it is fact.

 

[outhouse]

I'm actually undecided on the whole interpretation of Genesis thing

This is more of a personal issue then anything else. It is directly tied to credible biblical education by historians. NOT apologist.

there are decent arguments from both camps.

Do you have any examples of this so called decent arguments from an apologist camp?

 

[Sapiens]

Well I'd like something where the critter in question actually gains new genetic information, and isn't selectively bred to just display already-existing characteristics, what sort of change is that?

You mean like where chimp like common ancestor had a end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that resulted in the Human chromosome 2?