Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

So now it's that they're evidence of evolution but not proof. Is that closer to your belief? Not proof but evidence. And the evidence is not proof, is that right? So like footprints of something called Bigfoot is not proof he (it) was there, the footprints are "evidence," but not "proof." I got it.

Again, I have always said "evidence". "Proof" was your error. As I said one must keep an open mind. But one thing that you do not understand since you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence, which is what one uses in a scientific discussion or debate, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. Going back to the legal standard that I brought up if you ever thought that someone was guilty of murder due to being "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". then you would need to accept the theory of evolution as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or rather hundreds of thousands. I remember looking into some database years ago... there's a lot. I read somewhere there are too many fossils when it comes to the evolution of horses. A majority of them haven't even been studied. Might be different now, but my point is the same as yours, there's plenty.

One of the favorite games of creation "scholars" to play is to misrepresent horse evolution. The very early picture of one line of descent is wrong It is much more complex that that with all sorts of offshoots. They will only quote parts of articles saying that the over simplified version is not correct. They will not even touch the more accurate version. Over 20 years ago there were at least 50 horse "species". I am sure that it is even higher today.

 

[Ouroboros]

According to the theory of evolution, didn't homo sapiens (humans) evolve from fish?

Or rather, we share ancestors.

One thing that's commonly misunderstood about the process of evolution is that we somehow evolved from some existing species that exist today, which isn't right. Separate lines of evolution from one or multiple common points lead multiple species to where they're today.

 

[Ouroboros]

One of the favorite games of creation "scholars" to play is to misrepresent horse evolution. The very early picture of one line of descent is wrong It is much more complex that that with all sorts of offshoots. They will only quote parts of articles saying that the over simplified version is not correct. They will not even touch the more accurate version. Over 20 years ago there were at least 50 horse "species". I am sure that it is even higher today.

And one of the parts that can be very hard to visualize or understand is that multiple branches of evolved species that are still compatible can create hybrids which then lead to new species. The tree analogy doesn't work perfectly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or rather, we share ancestors.

One thing that's commonly misunderstood about the process of evolution is that we somehow evolved from some existing species that exist today, which isn't right. Separate lines of evolution from one or multiple common points lead multiple species to where they're today.

The ancestor that we share with modern fish would have been a fish itself. So yes, we ultimately did evolve from fish. He is desperately grappling with Haeckel. Haeckel believed that the evolution of an organism was repeated in the stages that it goes through as an embryo. That is not the case. He does not understand that even though Haeckel was wrong about his beliefs that embryos are still evidence of evolution.

I think that there must be something very convincing about embryos that eats at creationists. They will do anything to tar Haeckel with a reputation that he did not deserve. At that time, since photography did not exist, it was fairly standard to emphasize organs and structures that one was using as evidence. They were not misrepresented, but they were made clearer than they really are. Today photos are supplemented with arrows, circle etc. highlighting what is being talked about. Of course the arrows circles etc. are not there either. That does not make their use fraud. The one clear wrong thing that Haeckel did was to use the same drawing for the very early stage of some embryos because he was pressed for time. He fixed that in later editions. He should have left those drawings out. Fraud? I don't think so. An improper act, definitely. But no permanent damage done. And of course his concepts were refuted by the 1920's, but of course since his illustrations were still evidence for evolution they were still used. They were simply not evidence for recapitulation.

 

[YoursTrue]

They are evidence for evolution

"Prove" is an improper term to use in the sciences, unless you add some sort of qualifier. Nothing is proven in the sciences. Concepts are accepted when well supported by evidence. But if you accept gravity then by the same standard you should accept evolution. Now if you want to use the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", then yes one could say that fossils "prove" evolution. But in the sciences one must keep an open mind. The word is not used by scientists.

Still not sure I understand about the "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" claim. I'm beginning to understand what you mean when you say fossils are not proof of evolution, but evidence. Although I have my questions about that. For instance, and the big one that remains is: why are there no real "evidences" of macro evolutionary changes with micro evolutionary steps evidencing the intermediary forms? Now I have been looking slightly (because it's not an easy subject for me to grasp) into water and H2O and Lavoisier and electrolytes and things like that. So it's interesting but something I'd have to either studiously investigate, probably along with working in a lab. I hope you get my point. I'm not denying that water is composed of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. I accept that. The concept is fascinating and the 'proof' of sorts is there.
I don't see the same type of verification with the standing theory (or theories) of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still not sure I understand about the "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" claim. I'm beginning to understand what you mean when you say fossils are not proof of evolution, but evidence. Although I have my questions about that. For instance, and the big one that remains is: why are there no real "evidences" of macro evolutionary changes with micro evolutionary steps evidencing the intermediary forms? Now I have been looking slightly (because it's not an easy subject for me to grasp) into water and H2O and Lavoisier and electrolytes and things like that. So it's interesting but something I'd have to either studiously investigate, probably along with working in a lab. I hope you get my point. I'm not denying that water is composed of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. I accept that. The concept is fascinating and the 'proof' of sorts is there.
I don't see the same type of verification with the standing theory (or theories) of evolution.

Take a murder trial. Let's say you have motive, opportunity, fingerprints of the accused at the scene. Fingerprints of the accused on the murder weapon. DNA of the accused on the murder weapon and at the scene. DNA from the victim on clothes of the accused. It is still conceivable that aliens from space with superior technology planted all of this evidence, but most would say that is good enough for me. Guilty!

And there is 'real "evidences"<sic> of macro changes with micro steps. It is rare since it is not expected, but we do have examples of that. One of the problems is that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. You will be forever groping in the dark until you at least try to learn this concept.

You can't see the evidence because you keep yourself ignorant. That does not mean that others, who are not afraid, cannot see this. This is also why creationists constantly lose in court. Judges tend to understand the concept of evidence very well.

 

[YoursTrue]

The ancestor that we share with modern fish would have been a fish itself. So yes, we ultimately did evolve from fish. He is desperately grappling with Haeckel. Haeckel believed that the evolution of an organism was repeated in the stages that it goes through as an embryo. That is not the case. He does not understand that even though Haeckel was wrong about his beliefs that embryos are still evidence of evolution.

I think that there must be something very convincing about embryos that eats at creationists. They will do anything to tar Haeckel with a reputation that he did not deserve. At that time, since photography did not exist, it was fairly standard to emphasize organs and structures that one was using as evidence. They were not misrepresented, but they were made clearer than they really are. Today photos are supplemented with arrows, circle etc. highlighting what is being talked about. Of course the arrows circles etc. are not there either. That does not make their use fraud. The one clear wrong thing that Haeckel did was to use the same drawing for the very early stage of some embryos because he was pressed for time. He fixed that in later editions. He should have left those drawings out. Fraud? I don't think so. An improper act, definitely. But no permanent damage done. And of course his concepts were refuted by the 1920's, but of course since his illustrations were still evidence for evolution they were still used. They were simply not evidence for recapitulation.

Surely you are not referring to me as desperately grappling with Haeckel. If so, and if not, I am simply pointing out that what was taught for decades as truth -- recapitulation from fish and earlier to humans in the human womb -- was fabricated to a large extent. Unless you believe it's true. If I have this correct, and I looked at his drawings which I hope to go more into later, it seemed he postulated that a human embryo literally looked like a bird or duck in the womb until it changed. I'm assuming that Stephen Jay Gould had the drawings quite readily available to him in textbooks, I do not now, so I am going also by the statements and also by some replicas of Haeckel's drawings online. I am not castigating Haeckel. I haven't met him, don't know if he was duplicitous, perhaps careless or thoughtless when he presented what he knew to be some fictionalized yes, some imaginary, drawings as true science.
Now I have read that the eyes of a human embryo shift from the side to more frontal, but why is this a sign that it is evidence of evolution from a fish type substance? Because it happens that way? No, I cannot accept that means evolution from fish in the sense of this happening without the format presented by a higher source. Because yes, I believe that the making of man was designed from a higher source, so why is it that this higher source of intelligence could not have done this, specifically speaking about the embryo, with the eyes moving forward? Because a lot of things I believed were true not to be questioned but considered as solid as gravity, shall we say, were later shown not to be so true. So the question remains: does the human embryo go through every sort of embryonic evolutionary development, including that of fish?
Further, the human being questions his background. Fishes and bonobos do not. Human beings work scientifically to try to "fix things," in other words, make vaccines, and assistance for infirmities. As far as I know, bonobos do not do things like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Take a murder trial. Let's say you have motive, opportunity, fingerprints of the accused at the scene. Fingerprints of the accused on the murder weapon. DNA of the accused on the murder weapon and at the scene. DNA from the victim on clothes of the accused. It is still conceivable that aliens from space with superior technology planted all of this evidence, but most would say that is good enough for me. Guilty!

And there is 'real "evidences"<sic> of macro changes with micro steps. It is rare since it is not expected, but we do have examples of that. One of the problems is that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. You will be forever groping in the dark until you at least try to learn this concept.

You can't see the evidence because you keep yourself ignorant. That does not mean that others, who are not afraid, cannot see this. This is also why creationists constantly lose in court. Judges tend to understand the concept of evidence very well.

DNA on clothing does not necessarily prove the suspect did it. I doubt a rational, thoughtful person on a jury, as I see it, would think an alien might have done it. Although called for jury duty, I was never on a jury for a trial so I have not had the experience of coping with someone that went on suspicion based on evidence in making a decision. I'm also glad I was not because I would not want to think I was wrong about deciding innocence or guilt. While mistakes happen, yet eyewitnesses, if they can be believed, are often crucial. Still, mistakes happen in rendering a verdict. I'll leave it there for now.
I don't accept the fact that certain types of evidence is said to support evolution, it's not that I haven't read or seen why some accept fossils or dna as evidence.
Well, I only have a certain amount of time and although I'd love to go into more about Lavoisier and other scientists, it's similar to the idea that one will never know the start to the finish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely you are not referring to me as desperately grappling with Haeckel. If so, and if not, I am simply pointing out that what was taught for decades as truth -- recapitulation from fish and earlier to humans in the human womb -- was fabricated to a large extent. Unless you believe it's true. If I have this correct, and I looked at his drawings which I hope to go more into later, it seemed he postulated that a human embryo literally looked like a bird or duck in the womb until it changed. I'm assuming that Stephen Jay Gould had the drawings quite readily available to him in textbooks, I do not now, so I am going also by the statements and also by some replicas of Haeckel's drawings online. I am not castigating Haeckel. I haven't met him, don't know if he was duplicitous, perhaps careless or thoughtless when he presented what he knew to be some fictionalized yes, some imaginary, drawings as true science.
Now I have read that the eyes of a human embryo shift from the side to more frontal, but why is this a sign that it is evidence of evolution from a fish type substance? Because it happens that way? No, I cannot accept that means evolution from fish in the sense of this happening without the format presented by a higher source. Because yes, I believe that the making of man was designed from a higher source, so why is it that this higher source of intelligence could not have done this, specifically speaking about the embryo, with the eyes moving forward? Because a lot of things I believed were true not to be questioned but considered as solid as gravity, shall we say, were later shown not to be so true. So the question remains: does the human embryo go through every sort of embryonic evolutionary development, including that of fish?
Further, the human being questions his background. Fishes and bonobos do not. Human beings work scientifically to try to "fix things," in other words, make vaccines, and assistance for infirmities. As far as I know, bonobos do not do things like that.

Yes, I am. Your error was explained to you time after time and you would not allow yourself to understand. Your posts reeked of desperation.

And you are still misrepresenting what was taught even after being corrected. You are still so so so desperate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA on clothing does not necessarily prove the suspect did it. I doubt a rational, thoughtful person on a jury, as I see it, would think an alien might have done it. Although called for jury duty, I was never on a jury for a trial so I have not had the experience of coping with someone that went on suspicion based on evidence in making a decision. I'm also glad I was not because I would not want to think I was wrong about deciding innocence or guilt. While mistakes happen, yet eyewitnesses, if they can be believed, are often crucial. Still, mistakes happen in rendering a verdict. I'll leave it there for now.
I don't accept the fact that certain types of evidence is said to support evolution, it's not that I haven't read or seen why some accept fossils or dna as evidence.
Well, I only have a certain amount of time and although I'd love to go into more about Lavoisier and other scientists, it's similar to the idea that one will never know the start to the finish.

Oh my! Now you can't even approach a non-evolution example honestly. Did I say that the DNA on the clothing was the only evidence? This is an epic fail. Try again.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

According to the theory of evolution, didn't homo sapiens (humans) evolve from fish?

EDITED PER CORRECTION BELOW: Yes, but humans didn't evolve from plants, and speciation needn't be as large-scale as that change. It means merely a change in species.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, so is it that fossils don't prove evolution. Or perhaps they do. Which is it? Do they or don't they prove evolution?

How is this confusing to you when it is extremely clear from the very post you are quoting?

Fossils DO NOT "prove" evolution, because NOTHING "proves" evolution. "Proof" does not exist in science, and no one fact is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of a given hypothesis. Fossils are EVIDENCE of evolution.

Now that I have made this absolutely clear to you, would you care to tell me why you had to lie about me saying that fossils proved evolution - which is something I have never, and would never, say?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So fossils are not proof but evidence that...(Perhaps you can complete the sentence.)

All life on earth evolved as a result of evolution from earlier forms.

 

[Polymath257]

According to the theory of evolution, didn't homo sapiens (humans) evolve from fish?

There is a pretty long series of changes between the two, but we did have a type of fish as an ancestor, yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Not quite. We evolved from sea-dwelling creatures, not necessarily fish.

Well, it was a type of rhipidistian fish, which are a type of lobe-finned fish.

 

[Polymath257]

So it's interesting but something I'd have to either studiously investigate, probably along with working in a lab. I hope you get my point. I'm not denying that water is composed of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. I accept that. The concept is fascinating and the 'proof' of sorts is there.

Here's a question. Has it been proved that water is always H2O?

 

[Polymath257]

So the question remains: does the human embryo go through every sort of embryonic evolutionary development, including that of fish?

No. Recapitulation has been shown to be wrong.

HOWEVER, the sequence that human embryos go through *is* a result of changes accumulated from our ancestors, all the way back. So there are similarities between our embryos and those of other species.

More specifically, those similarities and the *pattern* of those similarities, is evidence for the common ancestry of ourselves and other living things on this planet.

Further, the human being questions his background. Fishes and bonobos do not. Human beings work scientifically to try to "fix things," in other words, make vaccines, and assistance for infirmities. As far as I know, bonobos do not do things like that.

You are correct. Humans have developed language, which allows for abstract thought to a depth not found in other species. This is a result of a fairly small biological (genetic) change, but has large consequences for our social structure.

Why do you think this is relevant?

 

[Astrophile]

That's great, because evolution is the backbone of modern biology!

Including the biology of invertebrates.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I am. Your error was explained to you time after time and you would not allow yourself to understand. Your posts reeked of desperation.

And you are still misrepresenting what was taught even after being corrected. You are still so so so desperate.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying that. Now what again was my error that you say you explained to me time after time? Please be specific. Thanks. Or if you cannot directly explain what my error was about Haeckel, and I was thinking that you override his imagined drawings of recapitulation in the human womb, and, I suppose therefore (?) stemming from that every organism in the line of mammals perhaps up until that particular organism moved on, if you get my point. I wouldn't want to be an evolutionist, but I'll tell you that you have piqued my interest in some of the sciences, including that of Lavoisier and Einstein.