Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

But how can micro or macro evolution be tested?

Good question. Quite a few different ways. The classic example is that of a fossil found far out of order in the fossil record. For example if creationism is true there is no need for various fossils be be found in specific layers. Perhaps you have heard of the "Precambrian bunny rabbit". That is the sort of finding that could refute the theory. Another creationist here is trying to claim that the K-T layer is from the flood, but if that were true we should find human fossils below it. But we do not. We do not find any human fossils anywhere near it. That is the sort of finding that would refute the theory.

There are tests that could confirm it too, and that has happened time after time, but in the sciences refuting a false theory is much more important than confirming a theory. For example the finding of Tiktaalik, a rather important transitional fossil of life between sea life and land life, was found by applying the theory of evolution to geology. Confirming a theory does not "prove it" but it does make one more confident in it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good question. Quite a few different ways. The classic example is that of a fossil found far out of order in the fossil record. For example if creationism is true there is no need for various fossils be be found in specific layers. Perhaps you have heard of the "Precambrian bunny rabbit". That is the sort of finding that could refute the theory. Another creationist here is trying to claim that the K-T layer is from the flood, but if that were true we should find human fossils below it. But we do not. We do not find any human fossils anywhere near it. That is the sort of finding that would refute the theory.

I understand. Kind of. And here's why it is now hard to accept the conclusion, based on what is deemed to be evidence (therefore proof) -- because the genes, while supposedly changing, cannot be seen or tested in the process of evolving into the closest relative. Only the remains, including the DNA, are found.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good question. Quite a few different ways. The classic example is that of a fossil found far out of order in the fossil record. For example if creationism is true there is no need for various fossils be be found in specific layers. Perhaps you have heard of the "Precambrian bunny rabbit". That is the sort of finding that could refute the theory. Another creationist here is trying to claim that the K-T layer is from the flood, but if that were true we should find human fossils below it. But we do not. We do not find any human fossils anywhere near it. That is the sort of finding that would refute the theory.

There are tests that could confirm it too, and that has happened time after time, but in the sciences refuting a false theory is much more important than confirming a theory. For example the finding of Tiktaalik, a rather important transitional fossil of life between sea life and land life, was found by applying the theory of evolution to geology. Confirming a theory does not "prove it" but it does make one more confident in it.

You do understand by now, I hope, that I do not agree with every creationist idea, don't you? Although Venice is having serious flooding problems... Ok a little joke there, but not for the residents of that interesting city.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand. Kind of. And here's why it is now hard to accept the conclusion, based on what is deemed to be evidence (therefore proof) -- because the genes, while supposedly changing, cannot be seen or tested in the process of evolving into the closest relative. Only the remains, including the DNA, are found.

What makes you think that they cannot be tested?

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that they cannot be tested?

I am saying that there are no observations of genes as they evolve to form a different organism such as whatever is supposed to have evolved to become a horse and what is supposed to have evolved from the horse, for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am saying that there are no observations of genes as they evolve to form a different organism such as whatever is supposed to have evolved to become a horse and what is supposed to have evolved from the horse, for example.

One does not need to directly observe such things to test them. What you are doing is placing an unreasonable test on genes. But I would like to know exactly what you think cannot be tested?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientists themselves are not on the same page

Which is evidence of it being unknown. If it were known, then scientists would agree.
But it's not known and scientists are trying to find out. They all have their own ideas or collaborate on some idea etc. And obviously all those ideas are in competition with eachother.
Perhaps one of these ideas will be left standing, or maybe - perhaps more likely - another idea nobody's come up with yet is the actual answer.

That's kind of the thing of something being "unknown". It means it isn't known.
And when you don't know something and wish to know, you're going to have to roll up your sleeves and try and find out. Not just make something up. Like some god who-dun-it.

But the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It also rightly said that mankind will never know the start to the finish

Why would I care what the bible says?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand the idea. I have a question. Again. To reiterate, the humàn embryo is always a human embryo. It does not pass through stages such as rabbit or fish, does it? Even if these early human embryos appear to be similar? The embryos are human and not fish or rabbits, right?

Yes, the human embryos are human, right. The rabbit embryos are rabbit, etc. The human embryo is never genetically a rabbit.

The human embryo never looks like an adult rabbit. It never looks like an adult reptile. It never looks like an adult fish

But the stages a human embryo goes through are similar to those another mammal will go through. Not identical (changes in development from evolution can affect any stage of development), but similar enough that unless you are an expert you won't be able to tell the differences.

Here, take a look at these embryos. Can you tell which is the rabbit without looking at the labels? These are actual photographs, not drawings.

Embryos - Comparative Embryology

 

[Polymath257]

That we have similar things, such as ears, legs, noses, with other organisms, does not mean, to me, all differences are caused by nàtural force or natural mindless selection of the genes.

That alone may not. But the *pattern* of similarities at different stages of development is *evidence* for the relatedness. And, when genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology are brought into the mix, and you ask *why* those similarities exist and why the show the patterns of similarity they do, evolution is the only real reason out there.

 

[YoursTrue]

And because you are a literalist you can never know what is true or not. This is rather sad since it is largely a self imposed defect. If you truly cared about the truth you would try to learn. It appears that you prefer dogma do truth.

You say I am a literalist. A literalist in what sense? How am I a literalist? I am learning from you and the other people here. Just as I would have been learning but in a different sense (because I yes, literally believed -- almost -- everything a teacher said) when Haeckel's theory was being taught, and we were taught as well without question that there were nine planets in the solar system. There was no question about it, no doubts, no questions in school. That was THE truth.
Now as Stephen Jay Gould said (and I knew his cousin, but that does not apply here ... just to say), the New York City school system taught without question (I know that for a fact) that the embryo went through every stage of evolution in the womb. And the students had to memorize the name of his theory, which is: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Gould didn't make things up about that. But you keep applauding Haeckel in your responses. I am only speaking of what is truth as scientific taught by the powers that be, and what is not truth. I have nothing against Haeckel in particular, and who knows? He may be delighted to know it was not true. Yes, I believe time will tell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the human embryos are human, right. The rabbit embryos are rabbit, etc. The human embryo is never genetically a rabbit.

The human embryo never looks like an adult rabbit. It never looks like an adult reptile. It never looks like an adult fish

But the stages a human embryo goes through are similar to those another mammal will go through. Not identical (changes in development from evolution can affect any stage of development), but similar enough that unless you are an expert you won't be able to tell the differences.

Here, take a look at these embryos. Can you tell which is the rabbit without looking at the labels? These are actual photographs, not drawings.

Embryos - Comparative Embryology

Thank you! I appreciate that answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

That alone may not. But the *pattern* of similarities at different stages of development is *evidence* for the relatedness. And, when genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology are brought into the mix, and you ask *why* those similarities exist and why the show the patterns of similarity they do, evolution is the only real reason out there.

I don't believe that evolution is the only real reason for the similarities. Just as I don't believe that living matter emerged from whatever it scientifically is supposed to have emerged from (also called nonliving matter).

 

[Astrophile]

Okay, to test the bug I hit reply to a post of yours. Erased your post and then quoted @YoursTrue . If it looks like I quoted you in a post to Yours True that is what happened.

There does appear to be a bug in the system. My post 1352 was in reply to YoursTrue's post 1346, who quoted my post 1341 while replying to Polymath 257's post 1345. It wasn't you who quoted me in a post to YoursTrue.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't believe that evolution is the only real reason for the similarities. Just as I don't believe that living matter emerged from whatever it scientifically is supposed to have emerged from (also called nonliving matter).

None of the atoms in your body is alive. But you are made of all of those non-living atoms and you are alive.

Life *does* arise from non-living matter. In fact, ALL life is made from non-living matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say I am a literalist. A literalist in what sense?

In the sense that your entire position seemingly can be summed up as being "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"

I am learning from you and the other people here. Just as I would have been learning but in a different sense (because I yes, literally believed -- almost -- everything a teacher said) when Haeckel's theory was being taught, and we were taught as well without question that there were nine planets in the solar system. There was no question about it, no doubts, no questions in school. That was THE truth.
Now as Stephen Jay Gould said (and I knew his cousin, but that does not apply here ... just to say), the New York City school system taught without question (I know that for a fact) that the embryo went through every stage of evolution in the womb. And the students had to memorize the name of his theory, which is: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Gould didn't make things up about that. But you keep applauding Haeckel in your responses. I am only speaking of what is truth as scientific taught by the powers that be, and what is not truth. I have nothing against Haeckel in particular, and who knows? He may be delighted to know it was not true. Yes, I believe time will tell.

It doesn't matter what (you believe) haeckel said, what your teacher said, what gould said, what darwin said or what captain kirk said.

What matters is the evidence we have at our disposable and which model best explains and predicts said evidence.

And in the world of biology, that model is evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe that evolution is the only real reason for the similarities.

Why?

 

[YoursTrue]

There does appear to be a bug in the system. My post 1352 was in reply to YoursTrue's post 1346, who quoted my post 1341 while replying to Polymath 257's post 1345. It wasn't you who quoted me in a post to YoursTrue.

If I'm not careful when looking at the posts, I can get posts from different users in one reply post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why?

Because I believe that there is a Creator who began life on this earth, including the different life-forms. Not all life-forms, but I'm not able to discuss that in depth right now. I don't believe life came about by itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Because I believe that there is a Creator who began life on this earth, including the different life-forms. Not all life-forms, but I'm not able to discuss that in depth right now. I don't believe life came about by itself.

And what evidence do you have to support this belief? Why should science take it seriously?

 

[YoursTrue]

In the sense that your entire position seemingly can be summed up as being "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"

There are those who believe in the Bible and are scientists as well. My entire position on this subject now--I was not always a believer in God--is that God created the heavens and the earth. Does that mean to me that He created two-headed snakes? No. Does He allow mutations? Yes. And that's where I stop right now. So if you call that a literalist, I guess that's your position about me. ;-/