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

[Sapiens]

Geological and biological evolution are written in rock strata and not in a theory why biological evolution occurs as a 'law' or anything else. Few can tell the difference and why the latter view was always downright speculative and dangerous.

Evolution occurred, that is as you have observed, "written in rock strata." Natural Selection is the driving force, that is written in the genetics of all organisms. Beyond that are details that you can quibble and (in some cases) speculate about, those qualified to do so may be "few" in your world, but in the circles I travel in constitutes damn near everyone.

 

[Sapiens]

yup, just like classical physics

Yup, just like two plus two is four in base ten.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Evolution occurred, that is as you have observed, "written in rock strata." Natural Selection is the driving force, that is written in the genetics of all organisms. Beyond that are details that you can quibble and (in some cases) speculate about, those qualified to do so may be "few" in your world, but in the circles I travel in constitutes damn near everyone.

Naughty. Evolution is cause neutral and existed as a study long before the theorists got their hands on it as a 'law' just the way they destroyed the works of the great astronomers by putting 'laws' into orbital dynamics without understanding the methods and insights which lead to the great astronomical discoveries.

The empiricists have managed to convince the vast majority of people that Darwinism is a 'law' of nature and therefore equates to evolution itself but that is basically due to historical ignorance of the wider population and nothing more.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

there was nothing new to theists about the concept of a beginning of creation, of everything, that's exactly why atheists hated the BB, once again, their complaint, not mine

No one in the theistic community had any idea like the Big bang except a few scientist who worked on the primeval atom. And even then it was from a scientific standpoint not a theistic one. Their concept was that it suddenly popped into existence exactly as we are now. That is very unlike the way we understand the big bang today

an outspoken atheist coming up with a theory that supports atheism, which he explicitly and repeatedly states the atheist ramifications of - is not atheist cosmology?

No. It is an atheist with a cosmological opinion. It does not span atheism and it is not tied to other atheists except in that some may agree with him. But it is in no way an "atheist" cosmology except in the sense that it doesn't' include god. However it was not the original goal.

Lemaitre never once made a connection to his beliefs, he went out of his way to avoid it, refute it, even though his theory was validated, not debunked like Hawkings- that's the scientific approach

Hawkins has had some work that was a dead end but his theories in general have not been "debunked" and never did he link atheism to his scientific work when dealing with science. He has professed his opinions about god and has used science as an example but you are going off of the titles and the TV shows where people are interested in their opinion of god rather than actually siting their scientific work. Find me a research journal or scientific document that was published that have them initiating god.

i.e. Lemaitre was not a theistic cosmologist- he was a cosmologist who happened to be a theist, he clearly separated the two.

As do most all scientist worth their salt. Both Atheist and Theist alike.

Hoyle, Hawking, Krauss, Greene and any atheist cosmologist you name, do not separate them, because they can't, they do not even acknowledge their beliefs as such

Actually their science is separate. However they have made a living as "atheists" rather than scientists in recent years. Monst can and often do cite and discuss their scientific work without ever having touched the concept of religion or god. Your idea that they somehow intertwine the two is based off of the fact that they have published works about atheism and cited science. However the process does not work the other way around.

 

[metis]

mega matter would not exist without the subatomic level functioning as it does, but, even mega matter does not follow the rules , the orbits of planets, the expansion of the universe does not obey newton's laws any more than atoms do.

The very essence of classical physics was that it represented a simple set of rules that all physics obeyed, which could be used to model the universe, as some people think for classical evolution today-

this was fundamentally wrong as I believe classical evolution today is fundamentally wrong- that doesn't mean apples don't fall from trees and offspring don't look like their parents

Newton's laws were not exactly on target, and he well knew that, positing that God made the difference so as that's why it all works out.

Mega-matter does follow the basic rules and why are you stopping at Newton? That's like saying that there's been advancement in psychology since Freud.

Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with the validity of the basic ToE, even though you've tried to twist things so that black becomes white and white becomes black. And I find it amazing that you so much question science, which is "kosher" in my book, btw, and yet do you really subject your own religious bent to such scrutiny?

If there are a lot of questions about the laws of physics, which there certainly are, how about having just a fraction of that scrutiny about the issue as to whether there's a God or not-- or is it "Gods"? Put forth the evidence, and let's cross-examine it.

 

[Sapiens]

Naughty. Evolution is cause neutral and existed as a study long before the theorists got their hands on it as a 'law' just the way they destroyed the works of the great astronomers by putting 'laws' into orbital dynamics without understanding the methods and insights which lead to the great astronomical discoveries.

The empiricists have managed to convince the vast majority of people that Darwinism is a 'law' of nature and therefore equates to evolution itself but that is basically due to historical ignorance of the wider population and nothing more.

First, there are no "laws" only theories. Second of all, if there were laws, Evolution and Darwinism would be among them, but because of the way we do science we keep everything open to an appropriate amount of doubt, which in this case is passing small.

If you have an argument to make against either, please state it and support it, else stop wasting time and bandwidth.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

]

First, there are no "laws" only theories. Second of all, if there were laws, Evolution and Darwinism would be among them, .

Another dumb empirical drone with no integrity for Darwin borrowed on a spurious social/political observation and turned it into a evolutionary necessity by calling it a 'law of nature'.

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

Unless you actually read what Thomas Malthus wrote,you will have no
idea just how repulsive the leap from national supremacy to
"survival of the fittest" actually is -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

Of course you can extend this to its ultimate conclusion using 20th century National Socialism but I will spare readers the justification for expansion and war. Empiricists like yourself lack integrity and go into a sulk so just disappear back into oblivion having learned your lesson.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No one in the theistic community had any idea like the Big bang except a few scientist who worked on the primeval atom. And even then it was from a scientific standpoint not a theistic one. Their concept was that it suddenly popped into existence exactly as we are now. That is very unlike the way we understand the big bang today

No. It is an atheist with a cosmological opinion. It does not span atheism and it is not tied to other atheists except in that some may agree with him. But it is in no way an "atheist" cosmology except in the sense that it doesn't' include god. However it was not the original goal.

Hawkins has had some work that was a dead end but his theories in general have not been "debunked" and never did he link atheism to his scientific work when dealing with science. He has professed his opinions about god and has used science as an example but you are going off of the titles and the TV shows where people are interested in their opinion of god rather than actually siting their scientific work. Find me a research journal or scientific document that was published that have them initiating god.

As do most all scientist worth their salt. Both Atheist and Theist alike.

Actually their science is separate. However they have made a living as "atheists" rather than scientists in recent years. Monst can and often do cite and discuss their scientific work without ever having touched the concept of religion or god. Your idea that they somehow intertwine the two is based off of the fact that they have published works about atheism and cited science. However the process does not work the other way around.

so they make a living as atheists, sell books, do TV appearances, and lecture as atheists.. but their staunch belief in atheism is in NO WAY is connected to their own work that they themselves describe as 'making God redundant'!?!? come off it Monk!

Again Lemaitre went out of his way to stop even other people connecting his theory with his beliefs, far less spouting it all over popular media himself, there is no comparison.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

so they make a living as atheists, sell books, do TV appearances, and lecture as atheists.. but their staunch belief in atheism is in NO WAY is connected to their own work that they themselves describe as 'making God redundant'!?!? come off it Monk!

Again Lemaitre went out of his way to stop even other people connecting his theory with his beliefs, far less spouting it all over popular media himself, there is no comparison.

The primeval atom was a scientific theory with no philosophical, ideological motivation, and validated by empirical observation. Big Crunch, multiverses, M theory, string theory are pop science speculations with no actual empirical scientific basis whatsoever, correct me if I'm wrong, the ideological implications are literally all they have going for them, it's the only reason they make a living out of them as you concede.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Newton's laws were not exactly on target, and he well knew that, positing that God made the difference so as that's why it all works out.

Mega-matter does follow the basic rules and why are you stopping at Newton? That's like saying that there's been advancement in psychology since Freud.

Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with the validity of the basic ToE, even though you've tried to twist things so that black becomes white and white becomes black. And I find it amazing that you so much question science, which is "kosher" in my book, btw, and yet do you really subject your own religious bent to such scrutiny?

If there are a lot of questions about the laws of physics, which there certainly are, how about having just a fraction of that scrutiny about the issue as to whether there's a God or not-- or is it "Gods"? Put forth the evidence, and let's cross-examine it.

I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?

I don't claim my belief to be an unquestionable fact, it's a belief- it's entirely up for debate, like most I have doubts and am always willing to explore flaws- again just like Lemaitre was able to separate personal beliefs from science, you have to acknowledge those beliefs first. We all have them.

The fundamental flaw with classical physics was, I believe the same flaw with classical evolution- entropy.

The reason newton's laws could not explain the physical world, is that the physical world does not collapse into it's simplest state as would happen under classical physics
the superficial 'laws' of the physical world are supported, guided away from entropy and towards functionality, creativity, productivity, by a very specific and finely tuned blueprint which underwrites the 'apparently simple' physical world we see around us. tamper with the blueprint infinitesimally and the whole thing crashes.

Similarly with life, the simple laws alone, without a blueprint, would not randomly create sentient beings having this debate right now, it would create the equivalent of the collapsed universe, a homogenous blob in it's simplest state.

 

[metis]

I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?

This thread is not about me and what my faith may be. I'm more than willing to discuss this on another thread, if you are interested.

I don't claim my belief to be an unquestionable fact, it's a belief- it's entirely up for debate, like most I have doubts and am always willing to explore flaws-

...

Good, and I mean it. If we stop questioning, we stagnate.

The fundamental flaw with classical physics was, I believe the same flaw with classical evolution- entropy.

The reason newton's laws could not explain the physical world, is that the physical world does not collapse into it's simplest state as would happen under classical physics
the superficial 'laws' of the physical world are supported, guided away from entropy and towards functionality, creativity, productivity, by a very specific and finely tuned blueprint which underwrites the 'apparently simple' physical world we see around us. tamper with the blueprint infinitesimally and the whole thing crashes.

As previously mentioned, Newton wasn't aware of a lot of things we now know, but he still was an absolute genius working with information he did have available. Like Einstein, he believed in what is called the "steady-state theory", which we now know is highly unlikely. Because of this, entropy really didn't fit into his picture to any large extent.

BTW, entropy has nothing to do with the ToE anyway.

Similarly with life, the simple laws alone, without a blueprint, would not randomly create sentient beings having this debate right now, it would create the equivalent of the collapsed universe, a homogenous blob in it's simplest state.

Most cosmologists doubt there was a Big Crunch and doubt there's likely to be one in the future. But the build-up of different forms is elementary to both physics and nature. Whether there's a deity or deities behind all this is impossible to tell using objectivity, but if one basis it on faith, that's a different matter.

As for me, I'm willing to call whatever caused this universe/multiverse "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Newton's laws were not exactly on target, and he well knew that, positing that God made the difference so as that's why it all works out.

These 'laws' are a subterfuge for an entirely different agenda which was uniquely Newton's even though 'laws of motions' were discussed long before Newton's followers hijacked what was up to then fairly open discussions -

An Essay of Dr. John Wallis, Exhibiting His Hypothesis about the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, Taken from the Consideration of the Common Center of Gravity of the Earth and Moon; Together with an Appendix of the Same, Containing an Answer to Some Objections, Made by Severall Persons against That Hypothesis

That wonderful letter was written in 1666 discussing laws of motions in respect to tides sloshing around the shores of the world while 23 years later Newton is talking about water sloshing around a bucket. They simply dumped everything on Newton by virtue that of a flagrant abuse of the predictive side of astronomy which was then meant to justify the predictive nature of experimental sciences and switched back into orbital dynamics as the 'law of gravity'.

You people are frozen solid within a late 17th century charade as though the 21st century and its tools are irrelevant. Grow up for goodness sake.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This thread is not about me and what my faith may be. I'm more than willing to discuss this on another thread, if you are interested.

...

Good, and I mean it. If we stop questioning, we stagnate.



As previously mentioned, Newton wasn't aware of a lot of things we now know, but he still was an absolute genius working with information he did have available. Like Einstein, he believed in what is called the "steady-state theory", which we now know is highly unlikely. Because of this, entropy really didn't fit into his picture to any large extent.

BTW, entropy has nothing to do with the ToE anyway.



Most cosmologists doubt there was a Big Crunch and doubt there's likely to be one in the future. But the build-up of different forms is elementary to both physics and nature. Whether there's a deity or deities behind all this is impossible to tell using objectivity, but if one basis it on faith, that's a different matter.

As for me, I'm willing to call whatever caused this universe/multiverse "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

Whether there's a multiverse behind all this is impossible to tell using objectivity, but if one basis it on faith, that's a different matter- but that's what we're here on this thread for after all

Entropy is what rules classical physics without any guiding forces-

Model an atom with classical physics only, and it collapses
Model life with classical evolution, same thing

as you note with classical physics, saying entropy had nothing to do with it, ignoring it as an essential hurdle to be overcome, was part of the problem was it not?. It was too simple for it's own good

 

[metis]

These 'laws' are a subterfuge for an entirely different agenda which was uniquely Newton's even though 'laws of motions' were discussed long before Newton's followers hijacked what was up to then fairly open discussions -

An Essay of Dr. John Wallis, Exhibiting His Hypothesis about the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, Taken from the Consideration of the Common Center of Gravity of the Earth and Moon; Together with an Appendix of the Same, Containing an Answer to Some Objections, Made by Severall Persons against That Hypothesis

That wonderful letter was written in 1666 discussing laws of motions in respect to tides sloshing around the shores of the world while 23 years later Newton is talking about water sloshing around a bucket. They simply dumped everything on Newton by virtue that of a flagrant abuse of the predictive side of astronomy which was then meant to justify the predictive nature of experimental sciences and switched back into orbital dynamics as the 'law of gravity'.

You people are frozen solid within a late 17th century charade as though the 21st century and its tools are irrelevant. Grow up for goodness sake.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about in regards to what I posted, especially since you seemingly cannot understand what I actually was saying about Newton, so stop your childish wining and start doing some careful reading. You have become irrelevant to me enough that I have no desire to baby-sit you any longer, so take your rattle elsewhere because I have no desire to hear it.

Time for the ignore option.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

so they make a living as atheists, sell books, do TV appearances, and lecture as atheists.. but their staunch belief in atheism is in NO WAY is connected to their own work that they themselves describe as 'making God redundant'!?!? come off it Monk!

If their scientific claim were basked off of a pre-convinced notion then they would be bunk (much like ID) then other scientists would call them on it. The fact that they have peer reviewed papers that have passed the inspection means that it isn't based on their own personal opinions. I think their books are. Also all of the ones that you have mentioned made a name for themselves in science well before they started to speak out against religion.

Again Lemaitre went out of his way to stop even other people connecting his theory with his beliefs, far less spouting it all over popular media himself, there is no comparison.

There is a lot of comparison to be had with the vast majority of scientists that you have never heard of that have never brought up their atheist beliefs (or lack thereof).

But what I was saying is that their scientific contributions are in no way held by their personal beliefs. The same for any religious individual.

 

[metis]

Whether there's a multiverse behind all this is impossible to tell using objectivity, but if one basis it on faith, that's a different matter- but that's what were here on this thread for after all

Entropy is what rules classical physics without any guiding forces-

Model an atom with classical physics only, and it collapses
Model life with classical evolution, same thing

as you note with classical physics, saying entropy had nothing to do with it, ignoring it as an essential hurdle to be overcome, was part of the problem. It was too simple for it's own good

Entropy only is a factor in the overall picture, not the myriads of little pictures that happen all the time. Things grow-- things decay-- things change-- no entropy needs to be considered. Evolution is in the here and now, and it really doesn't relate to the overall winding down of the universe.

 

[gnostic]

Geological and biological evolution are written in rock strata and not in a theory why biological evolution occurs as a 'law' or anything else. Few can tell the difference and why the latter view was always downright speculative and dangerous.

There is no law in the theory of evolution.

Any theory - and not just of evolution - is to provide verifiable explanation for observable facts. Any valid scientific theory will lay out specific phenomena under investigation and explain it so that the rest of can understand it, like

1. what it is (ie. defining the phenomena),
2. how it work (eg. the mechanism of the phenomena),
3. to make prediction and see if it is true or not through observation (this could be repeated and rigorous testings or it could be discovering verifiable evidences),
4. and to see if there are application for this phenomena.

It is the evidences or tests (or both), that give any theory it's objectivity, not belief or faith.

And there are far more evidences to support and verify evolution that it is "true", that it would only ignorant and biased to ignore it.

This concrete theory doesn't mean it can't be or shouldn't be questioned or challenged. It has being challenged, repeatedly for nearly 150 years, and it hasn't yet being refuted.

Darwin's Natural Selection is still valid today, but it has been revised and updated, given new technology and newer understanding of biology, such as mutation (another evolutionary mechanism), molecular biology, DNA, etc.

Mutation doesn't replace Natural Selection (NS), but supplement it, and expand the original theory even further than Darwin had taken evolution. And there are couple of other alternative biological mechanisms to NS, like Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking, where environments (like climate, terrain, availability of resources) are not the factors for change in population.

Creationism is based on blind faith in their misunderstanding myths, ignorance and superstitions. God did it, is hardly a rational explanation. And genesis and the rest of bible is not a book on biology or any other scientific endeavours.

 

[Sapiens]

]


Another dumb empirical drone with no integrity for Darwin borrowed on a spurious social/political observation and turned it into a evolutionary necessity by calling it a 'law of nature'.

My goodness, name-calling this early in the game, you are a hasty one.

]
"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

Yes, odd that you should mention that quote I read it not an hour ago due to Carl Zimmerman's reference to it in his Evolution, The Triumph of an Idea.

]
Unless you actually read what Thomas Malthus wrote,you will have no
idea just how repulsive the leap from national supremacy to
"survival of the fittest" actually is -

There are many "repulsive" things in the world including (but not limited to) stupidity and ignorance. Neither "National Supremacy" nor "Bloody Tooth and Claw Survival of the Fittest" have anything to do with either Evolution or Darwinism, they are much subtler phenomena operating, as they do, on the basis of minor advantages that promote the reproductive success of latter generations rather than the murder of this generation. Let us not forget the that "meek will inherit the earth" and often the genome also.

]
"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus


Of course you can extend this to its ultimate conclusion using 20th century National Socialism but I will spare readers the justification for expansion and war.

Is it not rather early in the discussion to be invoking the Nazis?

In your haste to make a case against something that you dislike, for reasons that you clearly choose not to reveal, you completely misunderstand what Darwin was thinking about, but that is the nature of slaving in the quote mine.

As Carl Zimmer notes:

In Mathus' grim essay, Darwin found the engine that could push evolution forward. The fortunate few who got to reproduce themselves wouldn't be determined purely by luck. Some individuals would have traits that would make them better able to survive under certain conditions. The might have a particularly slender beak, they might grow thicker coats of fur. Whichever individuals were born with these traits would be more likely to have offspring than weaker members of their species. And because offspring tend to be like their parents, they would pass on those winning traits to their young.

This imbalance would probably be too small to see from one generation to the next. But Darwin was already comfortable with imperceptible geological changes producing mountains. Here was mountain making of a biological sort. If a population of birds ended up on a Galapagos island, the individual birds that were best suited to life on the island would produce the next generation. And with enough time, these changes would produce a new species of bird.

Darwin found a good analogy for this process in the way farmers tend their crops. They breed their plants by comparing how well each stalk or tree turns out. The ten use the seeds only from the best ones to plant the next generation. With enough breeding the crops become distinct from other varieties. But in nature there is no farmer. There are only individual animals and plants completing with one another to survive, for light or water or food. They undergo a selection as well, a selection that take place without a selector. And as a result, Darwin recognized, life's design could com about naturally, with no need for a string of individual acts of creation.

No need for a designer, no need for a creator, no need for Nazis, no need for Stalinists, no need for Maoists.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

You literally have no idea what you're talking about in regards to what I posted, especially since you seemingly cannot understand what I actually was saying about Newton, so stop your childish wining and start doing some careful reading. You have become irrelevant to me enough that I have no desire to baby-sit you any longer, so take your rattle elsewhere because I have no desire to hear it.
Time for the ignore option.

See the Magen David symbol attached to your posts, maybe when you stack up Darwin's law of nature borrowed from a social/political commentary of Malthus and extend it to German expansion including an attempt of Jewish annihilation you might think twice about human 'laws' imposed on terrestrial and celestial phenomena -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

You empirical dummies have done enough damage to humanity with your voodoo and bluffing but now and again the sheer stupidity surfaces in a spectacular way such as the ideology of national expansion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Entropy only is a factor in the overall picture, not the myriads of little pictures that happen all the time. Things grow-- things decay-- things change-- no entropy needs to be considered. Evolution is in the here and now, and it really doesn't relate to the overall winding down of the universe.

Entropy is a factor in every tiny picture of an atom at every nanosecond, they would wind down very quickly under simple laws, without forces specifically keeping them alive in particular configurations that ultimately describe solar systems, planets and habitats for life

same with life, there is no simple law of 'classical' evolution that has anything stopping life simply decaying into it's simplest form, complex life eating itself out of food, bacteria taking over plants and animals, then eating themselves into oblivion. But like the atom, and the rich structures they are instructed to produce, life is able to battle entropy, become more rich and complex