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

[Sapiens]

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

No.

Faith is not something I posses.

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

Occam is a way to chose between unknowns, not a way to overrule a known ... but then you know that and you're just being willfully ignorant.

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

Life was likely produced many, many times and only one form survived, all the others forms became nutrients.

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

What makes you say that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No.

Faith is not something I posses.

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

Occam is a way to chose between unknowns, not a way to overrule a known ... but then you know that and you're just being willfully ignorant.

it's about choosing the simplest explanation, always tempting but has proven to be a losing bet- static, eternal, classical physics, geocentric universe.. etc etc etc

Life was likely produced many, many times and only one form survived, all the others forms became nutrients.

produced intelligence once

What makes you say that?

universal constants, not fudgable

 

[Sapiens]

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

Cute phrasing but that's all it's got going for it.

it's about choosing the simplest explanation, always tempting but has proven to be a losing bet- static, eternal, classical physics, geocentric universe.. etc etc etc

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better

A good example is the motions of the solar system, it's planets and moons that can be calculated using a geocentric model or a heliocentric model. Both work, but the geocentric system requires many more assumptions than the heliocentric system, which has only seven, as was pointed out in the preface of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

produced intelligence once

That is a much later artifact of little import.

universal constants, not fudgable

You've got the cart out in front of the horse.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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?

human chromosome 2? I don't geddit. Do you mean the human chromosome was created by a common ancestor? Could you give a source to explain/show this?

 

[Sapiens]

human chromosome 2? I don't geddit. Do you mean the human chromosome was created by a common ancestor? Could you give a source to explain/show this?

If you're going to discuss evolution you really need a better background in basic biology in general and genetics in particular.

The human chromosome two was formed by an end to end fusion of two chromosomes. That is why other primates appear to have one more chromosome that humans do. This occurred in a primate species whose line split into two, one leading to chimps and bonobos and other leading to humans.

For more detail: Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shawn001]

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?

The ones I posted above about whales, bears and turkeys. The billions of facts that support evolution. Didn't you say you were a biology teacher or something when you first came to the forums? Or do I have that wrong?


One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.

The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes andskin .

"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.

If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair , eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

"It's exactly what I sort of expected to see from what we know about selection around this area," said John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, referring to the study results regarding the OCA2 gene. Hawks was not involved in the current study.

Baby blues

Eiberg and his team examined DNA from mitochondria, the cells' energy-making structures, of blue-eyed individuals in countries including Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. This genetic material comes from females, so it can trace maternal lineages.

They specifically looked at sequences of DNA on the OCA2 gene and thegenetic mutation associated with turning down melanin production.

Over the course of several generations, segments of ancestral DNA get shuffled so that individuals have varying sequences. Some of these segments, however, that haven't been reshuffled are called haplotypes. If a group of individuals shares long haplotypes, that means the sequence arose relatively recently in our human ancestors. The DNA sequence didn't have enough time to get mixed up.

"What they were able to show is that the people who have blue eyes in Denmark, as far as Jordan, these people all have this same haplotype, they all have exactly the same gene changes that are all linked to this one mutation that makes eyes blue," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

Melanin switch

The mutation is what regulates the OCA2 switch for melanin production. And depending on the amount of melanin in the iris, a person can end up with eye color ranging from brown to green. Brown-eyed individuals have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production. But they found that blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes.

"Out of 800 persons we have only found one person which didn't fit — but his eye color was blue with a single brown spot," Eiberg toldLiveScience, referring to the finding that blue-eyed individuals all had the same sequence of DNA linked with melanin production.

"From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor," Eiberg said. "They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA." Eiberg and his colleagues detailed their study in the Jan. 3 online edition of the journal Human Genetics.

That genetic switch somehow spread throughout Europe and now other parts of the world.

"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids."

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

 

[shawn001]

human chromosome 2? I don't geddit. Do you mean the human chromosome was created by a common ancestor? Could you give a source to explain/show this?

Ken Miller who is a Roman Catholic by the way.


Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome
The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.

 

[shawn001]

The Pit of Death - Envision dinosaur corpses stacked one on top of each other, piled four and five high.

The Pit of Death is what some scientists are calling it, others "Dinosaur Pompeii". Envision dinosaur corpses stacked one on top of each other, piled four and five high. But not just any old dinosaurs, new, well-preserved skeletons - many that have never been seen before. A bizarre T. rex ancestor, a triceratops ancestor, an ancient crocodilian and nearly 40 different species dating back 160 million years, a time in dinosaur history of which little is known. The graves of these new species are uncovered deep in the dry and desolate Junggar Basin of western China and a team of palaeontologists unearth answers to this virtual black hole in dinosaur evolution.

Dino Death Trap - National Geographic Channel - Asia

 

[Bunyip]

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?

Every time an organism reproduces, there is new 'information' - you have new genetic 'information' every time your cells divide buddy. You want new characteristics to pop up from nowhere - that's magic, not evolution.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Every time an organism reproduces, there is new 'information' - you have new genetic 'information' every time your cells divide buddy. You want new characteristics to pop up from nowhere - that's magic, not evolution.

What's new about the information every time a cell divides, or an organism reproduces?

 

[Bunyip]

What's new about the information every time a cell divides, or an organism reproduces?

I hate to break this to you, but this whole 'new information' nonsense you have is just creationist deception - nothing really to do with evolution.
But anywho - when cells divide and organisms reproduce there are small copying errors, each of these is new genetic information.

I hate to be blunt but if your interest here is honest - why have you so obviously not read up on one single word of mainstream biology outside of creationist propoganda? Why have you not bothered to even discover what evolution actually means?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I hate to break this to you, but this whole 'new information' nonsense you have is just creationist deception - nothing really to do with evolution.
But anywho - when cells divide and organisms reproduce there are small copying errors, each of these is new genetic information/

I hate to be blunt but if your interest here is honest - why have you so obviously not read up on one single word of mainstream biology outside of creationist propoganda? Why have you not bothered to even discover what evolution actually means?

I am aware of how evolution is defined and the claim that copying errors or mutations bring in new information, I just don't really see how, could you give a source? Your assertion is more of an ad hominem to discredit rather than anything based on what I've said. The actual evidence you put forward was bogus and down to selective breeding, and now all you have is to start talking about how I haven't read up what any of it means, of course!

Evolution is explained by very minute changes over billions of years (though the Cambrian explosion sorta defies this) and this is how these big differences between species are explained. If you can show one minute change did occur though, how can you then extrapolate that backwards millions of years and say this is how everything was formed? I don't really see the empirical evidence, only well-thought out conjecture based on fossils, genetic similarities and then observed minute changes in species.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am aware of how evolution is defined and the claim that copying errors or mutations bring in new information, I just don't really see how, could you give a source? Your assertion is more of an ad hominem to discredit rather than anything based on what I've said. The actual evidence you put forward was bogus and down to selective breeding, and now all you have is to start talking about how I haven't read up what any of it means, of course!

You don't understand the chemical process that causes mutations? Is that what you want a link to? And I haven't seen any attacks against you. Pointing out that you might not understand something doesn't mean that its an attack. There is a certain amount of education one really needs to have before falling into the debate and luckily it just takes a small amount of time reading up or watching a video to get the gist of it .I can give you some links to DNA replication and mutation if that is what you wanted.

Evolution is explained by very minute changes over billions of years (though the Cambrian explosion sorta defies this) and this is how these big differences between species are explained. If you can show one minute change did occur though, how can you then extrapolate that backwards millions of years and say this is how everything was formed? I don't really see the empirical evidence, only well-thought out conjecture based on fossils, genetic similarities and then observed minute changes in species.

The Cambrian explosion actually doesn't defy it. IT was a time of rapid evolution which was a unique event but it in no way goes against evolution.

The theories are based in evidence. The evidence is there and if you would like to study it then by all means you should. But don't make the mistake of not understanding what the evidence says to it not being enough. Fossil evidence was a strong evidence but DNA evidence has produced far more solidity to the theory than ever before. There is no other explanation that comes close to evolution in both its explanation power backed by evidence and its predictive capabilities that have been tested numerous times.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe it is not as far fetched an analogy as you think. Remember that observers are looking at bones and making connections that can't be proven simply on the basis of how things look.

I believe you are saying that one pot did not evolve from the other but can't bring yourself to state it openly.

 

[McBell]

I believe it is not as far fetched an analogy as you think. Remember that observers are looking at bones and making connections that can't be proven simply on the basis of how things look.

I believe you are saying that one pot did not evolve from the other but can't bring yourself to state it openly.

You are free to believe whatever nonsense you like.
Your analogy, though clever sounding to you and your choir, does not apply to evolution.
That you cannot understand why is a huge part of the problem.

 

[Bunyip]

I am aware of how evolution is defined and the claim that copying errors or mutations bring in new information, I just don't really see how, could you give a source?

So what if you don't see how? Your personal ignorance is not an argument against evolution mate.

Your assertion is more of an ad hominem to discredit rather than anything based on what I've said.

Nope, it was drawn from what you have said - you clearly have no idea whatsoever about how evolution works.

The actual evidence you put forward was bogus and down to selective breeding, and now all you have is to start talking about how I haven't read up what any of it means, of course!

Evolution is explained by very minute changes over billions of years (though the Cambrian explosion sorta defies this)

No it doesn't mate - the Cambrian Explosion took millions and millions of years - you think the world is less than 10,000 years old and that all cats evolved from the one 'kind' in just a few thousand years - that is evolution at a rate exponentially faster than the Cambrian explosion.

and this is how these big differences between species are explained. If you can show one minute change did occur though, how can you then extrapolate that backwards millions of years and say this is how everything was formed? I don't really see the empirical evidence, only well-thought out conjecture based on fossils, genetic similarities and then observed minute changes in species.

Sure, you don't see the empirical evidence because you refuse to look at it - as I said, your personal and deliberate ignorance is not an argument against evolution. In fact it is a far more persuasive argument for the dangers of falling for creationist lies.

 

[Bunyip]

Sultan of Swing

Just as a heads up, your objections actually destroy your own position, not that of mainstream biology. If you think that the Cambrian explosion was too fast for evolution to occur - then for all life to have diverged from the critters on Noah's ark would require evolution even faster.

You are essentially doubting evolution for a reason that far more persuasively demolishes creationism.

 

[Willamena]

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better

A good example is the motions of the solar system, it's planets and moons that can be calculated using a geocentric model or a heliocentric model. Both work, but the geocentric system requires many more assumptions than the heliocentric system, which has only seven, as was pointed out in the preface of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

How many assumptions does the heliocentric have?

 

[Willamena]

(Fictional story) A man made a pot on his pottery wheel. I believe you did not amke that pot it evolved because it looks like another pot in your house says another man. I am testifying that I amde the pot the man says. The other man says prove that you made it. Of course I can't prove it but I am truly testifying that I made it.

I believe this says a lot about who is most foolish about evidence.

So, Evolution is an issue of whether testimony is plausible?

What if no one in the whole wide world testified to evolution's plausibility, but you still believed?

 

[Sapiens]

How many assumptions does the heliocentric have?

Seven.

So, Evolution is an issue of whether testimony is plausible?

What if no one in the whole wide world testified to evolution's plausibility, but you still believed?

Actually you have it backwards, the Creationists and IDers depend on trying to make their argument barely plausible, scientists rely on showing their augment probable.