Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Astrophile]

Schoolchildren and adults alike were taught that there were NINE PLANETS in the solar system just a few years ago. That was TRUTH for them. Now it's not truth, is it? Or is it? I'd love to hear your explanation about this.

School-children and adults may have been taught this, but, almost as soon as Pluto was discovered, astronomers realised that it was anomalous, both in its probable size and in its eccentric and highly inclined orbit. As early as 1936, Professor Raymond Lyttleton proposed that Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune, and there were also vague suggestions that it might be the largest and brightest member of a trans-Neptunian asteroid belt.

 

[Astrophile]

I brought it up because of the changes taught as truth. Pupils are generally not taught that scientific truth changes based on evidence.

Exactly so. Scientific truth changes based on evidence, not on scientists' interpretation of books written by other scientists or on their interpretation of the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

As far as explaining the details as to how God did it is not why the Bible was written. Scientists can offer an explanation as to how it was done to a degree, even though at this point the explanation no longer makes sense to me, since the only observable things are fossils and the idea generally taught that one lifeform mysteriously morphed slowly into another, since there are no specimens living or dead showing the actual biological movement of the cells and changing dna selection.

Again, you are confusing actual mutations in Evolution with comic versions of mutations.

In evolution, one individual life don’t simply “morph into something else”.

Your ISS astronaut example, gravity may have affected their circulation by gravity, but if the conditions -

1. are temporary and/or,
2. their children and grandchildren are not born with this physiological abnormality...

...then this isn’t Evolution.

What I mean by “temporary” in my first point, if their conditions return to normal after some days, weeks or months back on Earth. I am talking about their changed circulation physiology are not locked on permanently.

In Evolution, the genetic traits that make life different to tiny degrees from their ancestors, must pass from parents to offspring, through their genes or through the sequencing of their nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA).

A single dog cannot physically morph into cat. And a dog cannot give birth to a cat. What you and most creationists are claiming about “Evolution”, are not possible in actual Evolution.

Evolution, and I am talking about real Evolution, doesn’t work in either ways.

There are limitations what science say what Evolution “can” and “cannot” do.

And Peter Parker cannot exhibit super strength, speed, and like a spider, the abilities to climb walls and ceilings, or spins their own webs. This is nothing but fantasy.

I have tried several times to explain this to you, that Evolution cannot happen to a single, individual life cannot magically turned entirely into something else.

Physically being able to “morph” isn’t Evolution, but you misunderstanding what Evolution is capable of.

 

[YoursTrue]

It isn't ultimately a question of whether 'God supersedes them all'. It is a question about whether the particular statement you believe about God supersede the evidence that science has collected. In other words, why should anyone think your interpretation of what God said or did is valid?

I don't ask you to take my view of whatever you think God is as valid. Isaiah 55:8 expresses it this way,
(English Standard Version)
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you are confusing actual mutations in Evolution with comic versions of mutations.

In evolution, one individual life don’t simply “morph into something else./QUOTE]
I realize that. But eventually evolution teaches that a series of mutation changes drive one type-thing-organism-body-species-kind into another type thing, etc. And...I don't believe that. I haven't approached yet the topic of species and fossil dating. Still on genetically propelled change that, I believe, has not been shown in real life time to be true.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, probably. I did so because of the scientific truth taught at a point and then changing when further information is determined.


I brought it up because of the changes taught as truth. Pupils are generally not taught that scientific truth changes based on evidence. And you have a valid point in that biblical thoughts and ideas can be contested by some. It is, I guess, what strikes the person. Or...what a person has been taught.


As far as explaining the details as to how God did it is not why the Bible was written. Scientists can offer an explanation as to how it was done to a degree, even though at this point the explanation no longer makes sense to me, since the only observable things are fossils and the idea generally taught that one lifeform mysteriously morphed slowly into another, since there are no specimens living or dead showing the actual biological movement of the cells and changing dna selection. What is considered as evidence is determined from fossils and then saying it seems related by DNA or physical similarity to something else which is said to be related by evolutionary development.

Erm, but surely schoolchildren are taught that scientific theories change, aren't they? I remember learning about the phlogiston theory, the plum pudding model of the atom and the early idea of four "elements" and how that changed.

And I don't think they are ever taught about something called "scientific truth". Truth is a word I seldom come across in scientific writing. That is deliberate: science works with theories that are models and do not claim ultimate truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize that. But eventually evolution teaches that a series of mutation changes drive one type-thing-organism-body-species-kind into another type thing, etc. And...I don't believe that. I haven't approached yet the topic of species and fossil dating. Still on genetically propelled change that, I believe, has not been shown in real life time to be true.

You may not believe in but it has been shown "in real life time" to be true. There really is not the sort of change that you talk about in evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate and you are still an eukaryote. That is going back a billion years without a change from "one type-thing-organism-body-species-kind into another type thing".

How languages change and become new languages is very similar to evolution. No speaker of any Latin based language could communicate with a Roman from Jesus's time. The language went through a series of changes over time. In fact all of the Romance languages have a roughly equal claim to being "Latin". They all started out with Latin speaking people that slowly changed over the years until they could no longer understand their neighbors. Evolution is like that. The first step is some sort of isolation. Between France and Italy it was the Alps. Between Spain and France it was the Pyrenees. Then time took its course. The same thing happens to populations of animals over time. Even if there is no split in species quite often if one had a time machine a species alive today would not be able to breed with its distant ancestors, just as a modern day denizen of Rome could not understand one from Jesus's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Erm, but surely schoolchildren are taught that scientific theories change, aren't they? I remember learning about the phlogiston theory, the plum pudding model of the atom and the early idea of four "elements" and how that changed.

And I don't think they are ever taught about something called "scientific truth". Truth is a word I seldom come across in scientific writing. That is deliberate: science works with theories that are models and do not claim ultimate truth.

You are quite right. Science does not teach the "Truth". It has models that are ever more accurate as time goes on. A picture of an element as an atom with neat planetary orbits is not "True" but it is more correct than the ancient idea of materials being a mixture of "Earth Wind and Fire".

 

[YoursTrue]

Erm, but surely schoolchildren are taught that scientific theories change, aren't they? I remember learning about the phlogiston theory, the plum pudding model of the atom and the early idea of four "elements" and how that changed.

And I don't think they are ever taught about something called "scientific truth". Truth is a word I seldom come across in scientific writing. That is deliberate: science works with theories that are models and do not claim ultimate truth.

I don't recall learning in my classes that what we are taught can change. I also believed what they taught (at the time) was rock bottom solid. Also, we had to know the answers in order to pass tests. This was, of course, in high school biology and chemistry, although I did take college biology but did not pursue any further courses since I was an arts major. I am (was, really) more interested in the arts than science until this type of discussion started.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may not believe in but it has been shown "in real life time" to be true. There really is not the sort of change that you talk about in evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate and you are still an eukaryote. That is going back a billion years without a change from "one type-thing-organism-body-species-kind into another type thing".

...

So then, do you or do you not believe there are "rock bottom never-changing truths" as far as evolution goes. You can say you are still an ape, I do not agree to that classification.
Meanwhile, that little bit of genetic difference makes a whole lot of difference in organisms. And makes sense that humans are rather different brain-wise from what they are said to evolve from. Can you show genetic changing within a set of organisms, eventually, quickly or slowly producing a different form (such as from gorilla to human) in "real time"? As an example, when doctors insert a stent in someone's vein they know what they're doing "real time." Can you show real-time changes in evolution within the genetic framework as it happens? (No, I'll answer that for you. If you have a different opinion, you might want to explain it a bit. -- thanks. Remember I said "real-time," not DNA from fossils compared with other fossils with DNA.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't recall learning in my classes that what we are taught can change. I also believed what they taught (at the time) was rock bottom solid. Also, we had to know the answers in order to pass tests. This was, of course, in high school biology and chemistry, although I did take college biology but did not pursue any further courses since I was an arts major. I am (was, really) more interested in the arts than science until this type of discussion started.

Most high school teachers are not competent when it comes to evolution. Even in college Biology for non-majors is often over simplified. And the problem could have been on you. You may have misunderstood. Even if one "passes" a class in college that is no guarantee that they really understand what was being taught.

EDIT: I thought that you were talking about just evolution, but I see that you are talking about all sciences. I am sorry to say that either you had some crappy teachers or you were a poor student. All of the sciences have a history of change. The various laws of chemistry, physics, biology and geology did not exist from the start. They had to be discovered and tinkered with over the years.

Take gravity for example. The work of Galileo gave us

D = (1/2)gt^2 + vt + h.

That only describes gravity near the Earth's surface and it is not exact.

Newton changed that with his:

F = GMm/r^2.

That along with the rest of his laws does simplify to Galileo's near the surface of the Earth but it also fairly accurately describes and predicts the motions of the planets. But it is no perfect either.

Einstein's General Relativity fixed the problems that were known in the 1800's but there are still unanswered questions. So even "gravity" is always changing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then, do you or do you not believe there are "rock bottom never-changing truths" as far as evolution goes. You can say you are still an ape, I do not agree to that classification.
Meanwhile, that little bit of genetic difference makes a whole lot of difference in organisms. And makes sense that humans are rather different brain-wise from what they are said to evolve from. Can you show genetic changing within a set of organisms, eventually, quickly or slowly producing a different form (such as from gorilla to human) in "real time"? As an example, when doctors insert a stent in someone's vein they know what they're doing "real time." Can you show real-time changes in evolution within the genetic framework as it happens? (No, I'll answer that for you. If you have a different opinion, you might want to explain it a bit. -- thanks. Remember I said "real-time," not DNA from fossils compared with other fossils with DNA.)

There are "rock bottom evolutionary truths" but they are on a much more basic level than your approach. For example it is a "rock bottom evolutionary truth" that a population of animals that continues to survive will evolve. That is how populations keep going after all. It is also a rock bottom truth that some populations will fail. In fact the vast majority of populations die out with time.
Evolve or go extinct is the basic rule.

But you want rules that would actually refute evolution. That is self contradictory.

And yes, since we can observe speication occurring, and have observed it "real time" we can observe the genetic changes that you talked about. Why make such claims if you cannot back them up?

I can, and actually have given you such examples in the past. You cannot support your claims. You need to slow down a bit and think every time that you make a claim:

"Can I find valid scientific sources that support this?"

In other words if you cannot find a valid scientific source that says we cannot observe evolution in action you should not make that claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are "rock bottom evolutionary truths" but they are on a much more basic level than your approach. For example it is a "rock bottom evolutionary truth" that a population of animals that continues to survive will evolve. That is how populations keep going after all. It is also a rock bottom truth that some populations will fail. In fact the vast majority of populations die out with time.
Evolve or go extinct is the basic rule.

But you want rules that would actually refute evolution. That is self contradictory.

And yes, since we can observe speication occurring, and have observed it "real time" we can observe the genetic changes that you talked about. Why make such claims if you cannot back them up?

I can, and actually have given you such examples in the past. You cannot support your claims. You need to slow down a bit and think every time that you make a claim:

"Can I find valid scientific sources that support this?"

In other words if you cannot find a valid scientific source that says we cannot observe evolution in action you should not make that claim.

I'm willing to listen. Where are the real time genetic changes that happen by themselves without human intervention and cause another species to come into being? Are you saying that tall or short, blonde or brown haired groups are evidence of evolution????? Frankly, if you really think that a population of brown-skinned people is a different species from lighter skinned persons and provide evidence for evolution, that's a problem in your thinking or some scientists' thinking.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most high school teachers are not competent when it comes to evolution. Even in college Biology for non-majors is often over simplified. And the problem could have been on you. You may have misunderstood. Even if one "passes" a class in college that is no guarantee that they really understand what was being taught.

EDIT: I thought that you were talking about just evolution, but I see that you are talking about all sciences. I am sorry to say that either you had some crappy teachers or you were a poor student. All of the sciences have a history of change. The various laws of chemistry, physics, biology and geology did not exist from the start. They had to be discovered and tinkered with over the years.

Take gravity for example. The work of Galileo gave us

D = (1/2)gt^2 + vt + h.

That only describes gravity near the Earth's surface and it is not exact.

Newton changed that with his:

F = GMm/r^2.

That along with the rest of his laws does simplify to Galileo's near the surface of the Earth but it also fairly accurately describes and predicts the motions of the planets. But it is no perfect either.

Einstein's General Relativity fixed the problems that were known in the 1800's but there are still unanswered questions. So even "gravity" is always changing.

Usually school teachers go by curriculum and textbooks. And P.S., I'm glad, although I disagree with S. J. Gould about evolution, that he realized and wrote that Haeckel's theory was taught as basic truth when he was in school. It wasn't shown that it could be in any way false. Good for Stephen Gould that he got it and wrote about it!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm willing to listen. Where are the real time genetic changes that happen by themselves without human intervention and cause another species to come into being? Are you saying that tall or short, blonde or brown haired groups are evidence of evolution????? Frankly, if you really think that a population of brown-skinned people is a different species from lighter skinned persons and provide evidence for evolution, that's a problem in your thinking or some scientists' thinking.

Your language could use a bit of work, but let's start at the basic mutation rate. You have on the order of 100 mutations in your DNA from that DNA of your parents. Those are "real time genetic changes".

And yes, all of those are examples of evidence for evolution. But since you won't let yourself learn what is and what is not evidence there is little change of you understanding that. I can guarantee that you do not understand the concept of evidence. When you are ready to learn tell me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Usually school teachers go by curriculum and textbooks. And P.S., I'm glad, although I disagree with S. J. Gould about evolution, that he realized and wrote that Haeckel's theory was taught as basic truth when he was in school. It wasn't shown that it could be in any way false. Good for Stephen Gould that he got it and wrote about it!!

When did Gould say that? You need to drop the "basic truth" claim. If you cannot support a claim you should treat it as a lie. I am starting to think that you may have a bit of a reading comprehension problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you are confusing actual mutations in Evolution with comic versions of mutations.

In evolution, one individual life don’t simply “morph into something else”.

Your ISS astronaut example, gravity may have affected their circulation by gravity, but if the conditions -

1. are temporary and/or,
2. their children and grandchildren are not born with this physiological abnormality...

...then this isn’t Evolution.

What I mean by “temporary” in my first point, if their conditions return to normal after some days, weeks or months back on Earth. I am talking about their changed circulation physiology are not locked on permanently.

In Evolution, the genetic traits that make life different to tiny degrees from their ancestors, must pass from parents to offspring, through their genes or through the sequencing of their nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA).

A single dog cannot physically morph into cat. And a dog cannot give birth to a cat. What you and most creationists are claiming about “Evolution”, are not possible in actual Evolution.

Evolution, and I am talking about real Evolution, doesn’t work in either ways.

There are limitations what science say what Evolution “can” and “cannot” do.

And Peter Parker cannot exhibit super strength, speed, and like a spider, the abilities to climb walls and ceilings, or spins their own webs. This is nothing but fantasy.

I have tried several times to explain this to you, that Evolution cannot happen to a single, individual life cannot magically turned entirely into something else.

Physically being able to “morph” isn’t Evolution, but you misunderstanding what Evolution is capable of.

I am not saying or thinking that the idea is that a single dog physically evolves slowly, very slowly into a cat. Yes, I am still wondering about populations. So I shall look at the line of supposed successive forms of evolution again. But, before I do, is there any evidence that an organism changed as in real-time (with x-rays, ultrasound observances) producing a different population. Or showing the DNA actual changes from one form to another, slowly or quickly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying or thinking that the idea is that a single dog physically evolves slowly, very slowly into a cat. Yes, I am still wondering about populations. So I shall look at the line of supposed successive forms of evolution again. But, before I do, is there any evidence that an organism changed as in real-time (with x-rays, ultrasound observances) producing a different population. Or showing the DNA actual changes from one form to another, slowly or quickly?

Sorry, this is a huge misunderstanding on your part. A dog cannot evolve into a cat.

A dog's descendants cannot evolve into a cat. That would be a "change of kinds" and there is no change of kinds in evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your language could use a bit of work, but let's start at the basic mutation rate. You have on the order of 100 mutations in your DNA from that DNA of your parents. Those are "real time genetic changes".

And yes, all of those are examples of evidence for evolution. But since you won't let yourself learn what is and what is not evidence there is little change of you understanding that. I can guarantee that you do not understand the concept of evidence. When you are ready to learn tell me.

OK, let me explain it back to you as I understand or don't your words. So you say there are about 100 mutations in my DNA from my parents. (Only 100?) I look similar but then again different from my parents. So if I were a student in your class, here's what I would take away: Every human born to a human is because of a process of genetic mutation. On the other hand, so far humans are born to humans. In observable time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, this is a huge misunderstanding on your part. A dog cannot evolve into a cat.

A dog's descendants cannot evolve into a cat. That would be a "change of kinds" and there is no change of kinds in evolution.

I don't think I said that, I was going with another poster's example. OK now you brought me into change of kind. So you are saying there is no change of kind in evolution?