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

[McBell]

Haha...more hand waving and obfuscation....you completely ignored the question...

Way to go Captain Obvious!
Annoying as hell, isn't it?

Now you got a small taste of what "discussion" with you is like.

 

[McBell]

The subject was the net zero energy of the universe, not something from nothing.

He has a habit of moving his strawmen goal posts.

 

[MARCELLO]

Nothing remains the same,everything changes/turns into something,that's why universe is such an interesting place.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Dunno...looks yellow to me. I'm just sayin.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Alright, I'll try to lay it out for you, as my comment wasn't in regards to "something from nothing". You said the following:


I provided the article, which includes the following explanation:

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. (https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/)

Thank you finally.....a number of observations....you never quoted the relevant excerpt to which your were referring....I quoted the relevant excerpt to which I was referring and to which I understood that is what you were also referring....with your sort of approach of waiting until now to clarify your position, the discussion was sure to run off the rails and waste a lot of time...

To your excerpt....the balance of energy referred to does not mean an absence of energy, nor that the energy tied up in the sum total of negative and positive particles is zero.. .....and in any event to my understanding, universal expansion is accelerating, so that idea of zero balance between positive expansive and negative gravity is not longer valid?

ps...Just did a quick check and the zero net energy universe is a hypothesis...perhaps even a minority of scientists support it....

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-zero-energy-universe-hypothesis-compatible-with-theaccelerating-universe

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you finally.....a number of observations....you never quoted the relevant excerpt to which your were referring....I quoted the relevant excerpt to which I was referring and to which I understood that is what you were also referring....with your sort of approach of waiting until now to clarify your position, the discussion was sure to run off the rails and waste a lot of time...

To your excerpt....the balance of energy referred to does not mean an absence of energy, nor that the energy tied up in the sum total of negative and positive particles is zero.. .....and in any event to my understanding, universal expansion is accelerating, so that idea of zero balance between positive expansive and negative gravity is not longer valid?

ps...Just did a quick check and the zero net energy universe is a hypothesis...perhaps even a minority of scientists support it....

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-zero-energy-universe-hypothesis-compatible-with-theaccelerating-universe

I was just providing an explanation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's fine....

 

[mindlight]

So you are aware of these things:
1. Genetics exist.
2. Genes are what pass on traits.
3. Less popular traits will not be spread on as much and will eventually be eliminated through time and flooded out through the spread of more popular traits.
4. That mutations exist and happen.
5. Genetic mutations are pretty much new traits introduced into the genepool.
6. Genetic mutations can thus be spread like a regular gene and become more and more common.

So tell me. Over the span of billions of years, how would species NOT evolve? That is clear evidence of natural selection right there, and one example of what causes evolution.

Not a biologist and know next to nothing about science in general. Nor an atheist. I mean this post in respect. I have noticed that many people have dodged your questions here

You could interpret the same microevolutionary adaptability in terms of a well designed phenotype that in its core modules does not change. Afterall we do not have an observable aufit trail of the transformation of one type of creature into another. We have gaps!

 

[outhouse]

You could interpret the same microevolutionary adaptability in terms of a well designed phenotype that in its core modules does not change. Afterall we do not have an observable aufit trail of the transformation of one type of creature into another. We have gaps!

You have refuted nothing.

Nor supplied any evidence for any such gap.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You could interpret the same microevolutionary adaptability in terms of a well designed phenotype that in its core modules does not change.

That's not an interpretation. It's an assumption. Attributing microevolution to intentional design is an assumption. Unfounded at that. You should learn to employ Occam's Razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Second, what The Sum of Awe described above involves unfavorable mutations to happen only to be selected out. You're saying some creator deliberately makes unfavorable mutations happen? E.g. makes organisms born to be less adequate and destined to be weeded off? Or worse yet, be born deformed?

 

[mindlight]

That's not an interpretation. It's an assumption. Attributing microevolution to intentional design is an assumption. Unfounded at that. You should learn to employ Occam's Razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Second, what The Sum of Awe described above involves unfavorable mutations to happen only to be selected out. You're saying some creator deliberately makes unfavorable mutations happen? E.g. makes organisms born to be less adequate and destined to be weeded off? Or worse yet, be born deformed?

It is ultimately a question of a choice of explanatory model. Code like you see in DNA simply does not arise spontaneously. But the phenotypes of all different kinds of creatures have proven immensely adaptable to unfavourable conditions. However there is also the distinction to be made between harmful damage and normal functionality. But since we have no way to know what the lost ideal looks like in a fallen world we cannot really say what the difference between normal adaptation and desperate measures is. This is actually not a discussion about evidence as most of the facts are agreed on and no explanatory model can be completely proven by them.

 

[mindlight]

You have refuted nothing.

Nor supplied any evidence for any such gap.

The audit trail is broken. The jumps are unexplained. Noone disputes the evidence but it needs explanation. A nested hierarchy and ideas about common ancestors is a different explanation to that of an intelligent designer.

 

[outhouse]

The jumps are unexplained.

What jump is that in human evolution??"? ?

intelligent designer.

has been proven to be pseudoscience in a court of law

 

[McBell]

Code like you see in DNA simply does not arise spontaneously.

source please.

But the phenotypes of all different kinds of creatures have proven immensely adaptable to unfavourable conditions. However there is also the distinction to be made between harmful damage and normal functionality. But since we have no way to know what the lost ideal looks like in a fallen world we cannot really say what the difference between normal adaptation and desperate measures is. This is actually not a discussion about evidence as most of the facts are agreed on and no explanatory model can be completely proven by them.

actually, it is a discussion about evidence.
without evidence all you have are bold empty claims.
Now I understand that there are millions of people who are content with bold empty claims because they care not about truth or fact but are instead only interested in ratification.
However, it is still about the evidence.
If you have no evidence to support your claims, you have nothing but faith and belief.
Now don't get me wrong.
i have no problems with people having faith and belief.
That is, until they try to foist their faith and belief over as fact and truth.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The audit trail is broken. The jumps are unexplained. Noone disputes the evidence but it needs explanation. A nested hierarchy and ideas about common ancestors is a different explanation to that of an intelligent designer.

Define gap in a meaningful way so that we can discuss if these gaps really exist. is there an unbroken line of lineage of every single individual back to a certain point? Of course not. Do we have "links" that have filled up these "gaps" yes. Yes we do. In that sense there are no gaps. In other senses there is always an infinitely small gap between any two fossils. So even if we were to find a mid way point you would just say the number of gaps doubled even though the information has increased in favor of evolution.

Now the fossils are incredibly strong evidence for evolution but in reality DNA alone is enough evidence to bring it into the realm of fact. The way that DNA behaves as well as our ability to track the exact % difference between creatures is incredibly important. For example the EXACT SAME METHOD that we can tell who is your cousin, father, sibling, half sibling, twin, ancestor, descendant, or not notably related within the context of immediate genetic relation, is used to determine on a larger scale how closely related we are to other species. Its the same concept. Its the same science. ITs even the same model.

 

[metis]

You could interpret the same microevolutionary adaptability in terms of a well designed phenotype that in its core modules does not change. Afterall we do not have an observable aufit trail of the transformation of one type of creature into another. We have gaps!

But these "gaps" are gradually getting filled over time. When I first stated teaching anthropology in 1970, the oldest known human fossil only dated back about 1 & 1/2 million years ago and we didn't have a clue about the Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon connection.

We know a lot about the evolution of humans and other organisms, but there always will be questions because that's the nature of science. However, we know a ton more than we did decades ago, so we well know how the process in general works.

 

[mindlight]

Define gap in a meaningful way so that we can discuss if these gaps really exist. is there an unbroken line of lineage of every single individual back to a certain point? Of course not. Do we have "links" that have filled up these "gaps" yes. Yes we do. In that sense there are no gaps. In other senses there is always an infinitely small gap between any two fossils. So even if we were to find a mid way point you would just say the number of gaps doubled even though the information has increased in favor of evolution.

Now the fossils are incredibly strong evidence for evolution but in reality DNA alone is enough evidence to bring it into the realm of fact. The way that DNA behaves as well as our ability to track the exact % difference between creatures is incredibly important. For example the EXACT SAME METHOD that we can tell who is your cousin, father, sibling, half sibling, twin, ancestor, descendant, or not notably related within the context of immediate genetic relation, is used to determine on a larger scale how closely related we are to other species. Its the same concept. Its the same science. ITs even the same model.

Except the differences whether of fossils or DNA make all the difference. shared code points to a Shared designer rather a common ancestor.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Except the differences whether of fossils or DNA make all the difference. shared code points to a Shared designer rather a common ancestor.

99% of DNA is junk DNA, as in, it doesn't code for anything. Even still, all life has similar junk DNA. It gets even more similar with similarly related groups, like humans and other apes.

 

[gnostic]

A nested hierarchy and ideas about common ancestors is a different explanation to that of an intelligent designer.

has been proven to be pseudoscience in a court of law

And ID has been long being debunked by the scientific community at large.

Intelligent Design have been shown to be nothing more than creationism in disguise, mindlight, and unscientific, hence it is why outhouse called it pseudoscience.

There are no evidences to support ID, because ID is untestable.

Michael Behe's paper on Irreducible Complexity (IC) has been refuted by biologists and biochemists, and the university he worked for, his own biochemistry department has distant themselves from Behe's ID and IC, because they are pseudoscience.

I don't understand why creationists and some theists still support ID, when there are no evidences to support it, and it has been already been refuted.

 

[gnostic]

Except the differences whether of fossils or DNA make all the difference. shared code points to a Shared designer rather a common ancestor.

What utter nonsense.

So you think genetics don't exist?
You don't think parents can pass on their genes and DNA to offspring?

Because that's what you are implying, when you think designer is responsible for biological genes being passed on, not ancestors.

And until you can show a Designer do exist, meaning verifiable evidences, then this designer is no more real than a unicorn or fairy.