Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are wrong, actually. And, the fact that you cut out the part of my comment proving that you were wrong seems to support this. "Proof" is often and correctly used to mean "evidence helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement" ... or, as I stated before "supporting evidence" (see below):

proof
pro͞of/
noun

1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
   synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation

<yawn>

wiki​

</yawn>

 

[leibowde84]

<yawn>

wiki​

</yawn>

Not sure how this is relevant. The words in question were "supporting evidence" (not "scientific evidence") and "proof" (not "scientific proof" ... which, I agree, is another term altogether). Can you explain how this cited article is relevant to the limitations of these words?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not sure how this is relevant.

OK.

I would argue that (in the field of science and in discussions concerning science) the distinction between proof and evidence is important. You prefer to obscure or at least ignore that distinction. As you wish ...

 

[leibowde84]

OK.

I would argue that (in the field of science and in discussions concerning science) the distinction between proof and evidence is important. You prefer to obscure or at least ignore that distinction. As you wish ...

First of all, this started with me asking a question as to what another commentor meant by the word "proof". Because it can be used to mean "supporting evidence", I asked whether that was how he was using it.

 

[First Baseman]

Can you answer my question, please. You merely dodged it last time. What do you mean by the word "proof"? Insurmountable or absolute proof or supporting evidence?

I have left the thread but I will answer your question. You accept your hand as absolutely real, right? Why? You can see it, you can use all 5 senses to verify it. Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

 

[outhouse]

Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

These are simple questions answered in grade school biology.

By DNA analysis, and fossil evidence.


WE can do it, it is fact and not up for debate with any credibility

 

[leibowde84]

I have left the thread but I will answer your question. You accept your hand as absolutely real, right? Why? You can see it, you can use all 5 senses to verify it. Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

I never claimed that this was possible. It is also in no way reasonable to expect this. There are clearly other ways of verifying the scientific theory of evolution. Why would you expect "absolute certainty"? Don't you hold beliefs that aren't "absolutely certain" and "verifiable with your 5 senses"? I sure do.

 

[Parsimony]

I have left the thread but I will answer your question. You accept your hand as absolutely real, right? Why? You can see it, you can use all 5 senses to verify it. Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

Science proves nothing with absolute certainty.

 

[leibowde84]

Science proves nothing with absolute certainty.

I agree. I'm not sure where this guy got that notion from. I don't think "absolute certainty" exists anywhere in reality. The illusion of it sure does, though.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have left the thread but I will answer your question. You accept your hand as absolutely real, right? Why? You can see it, you can use all 5 senses to verify it. Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

"Absolute certainty" is something of a ridiculous standard. Nobody can prove anything at all with absolute certainty.

Science deals with probabilities.

 

[Shad]

Not sure how this is relevant. The words in question were "supporting evidence" (not "scientific evidence") and "proof" (not "scientific proof" ... which, I agree, is another term altogether). Can you explain how this cited article is relevant to the limitations of these words?

Jay is pointing out that every idea from science is based on induction thus can not be by definition proof. Evidence can be well supporting but never result in 100% certainty or an absolute. Also the verification is not the end of SM but falsification.

At times, I do this myself, we slip back into common word usages that is flawed when placed within the proper context. So proof becomes evidence but in context there is no proof only evidence.

 

[First Baseman]

"Absolute certainty" is something of a ridiculous standard. Nobody can prove anything at all with absolute certainty.

Science deals with probabilities.

How do you deal with the extreme probability that life did not "come about" randomly? I saw an estimate that there is a 1(insert 40 zeroes here):1 chance that life developed on Earth randomly. That probability is practically zero.

 

[leibowde84]

How do you deal with the extreme probability that life did not "come about" randomly? I saw an estimate that there is a 1(insert 40 zeroes here):1 chance that life developed on Earth randomly. That probability is practically zero.

1) What are you arguing against? Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life?
2) Why would the absence of "randomness" disprove evolution in the least?

 

[First Baseman]

1) What are you arguing against? Evolution doesn't speak to the origin of life?
2) Why would the absence of "randomness" disprove evolution in the least?

1. Without a creator evolution is entirely dependent on abiogenesis theories.
2. I didn't say it did,

 

[leibowde84]

1. Without a creator evolution is entirely dependent on abiogenesis theories.
2. I didn't say it did,

Why would you think that? Just because other theories haven't been developed yet (which, I doubt), why would that mean that abiogenesis has to be the answer? Are you again assuming that evolution necessarily employs materialism? I can see it working the other way around, but many non-materialists fully buy into evolution as an explanation for how life changed over long periods of time.

 

[dust1n]

I have left the thread but I will answer your question. You accept your hand as absolutely real, right? Why? You can see it, you can use all 5 senses to verify it. Unfortunately you cannot do that with macro-evolution. How will you prove macro-evolution actually occurred with absolute certainty? You simply cannot do it.

Oh, well you answer my question questions that still sit around waiting since you are back?

Okay, that's the number of species that exist today. How many kinds existed on the ark?

I'm still trying to figure out how you used the same standards by which you discarded evolution as conjecture, but do not use those same standards to yourself when applied to Bible.

Is it possible that your reliance on the Bible is, at best, the functional equivalent to looking at a textbook of evolution, and taking it as true?

 

[outhouse]

How do you deal with the extreme probability that life did not "come about" randomly? I saw an estimate that there is a 1(insert 40 zeroes here):1 chance that life developed on Earth randomly. That probability is practically zero.

Its better then the 100% chance mythology did anything at all.

 

[outhouse]

1. Without a creator evolution is entirely dependent on abiogenesis theories.

You mean without mythology--------- we study the facts of evolution and have a great grasp on abiogenesis in which every year we learn more and are close to replicating life in a lab.

 

[Looncall]

How do you deal with the extreme probability that life did not "come about" randomly? I saw an estimate that there is a 1(insert 40 zeroes here):1 chance that life developed on Earth randomly. That probability is practically zero.

Citation please?

If you consider how many planets there are in the universe, and how many opportunities for reactions arise in some organics-rich puddle, your number is not so impressive anyway.

Given that the behaviour of matter is governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, your use of the word random is off-base.

I think this is just an argument from ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

I think this is just an argument form ignorance.

I think you would be challenged to find one not from there.