How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Subduction Zone]

This is going to be a short thread. I am just curious to see if any of our creationist members can come up with the correct number.

I have extreme doubts.

 

[Left Coast]

There's a correct number?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's a correct number?

Yes. There actually is. You could probably reason it out. If you want to know before I give the answer away here I could PM you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, it seems that none of our super educated creationists want to even take try.

The answer is rather obvious. @Left Coast figured it out. The number is zero. We do not need any fossils to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Fossils are for the ignorant. They do fill in some of the history of evolution, but we do not need evolution's history to know that it happened. In fact Darwin did not rely upon fossils at all as evidence for his theory. Right now the strongest evidence is the same evidence that used to allow Maury Povich to yell "You are the father!!". And that is DNA. And we can use DNA in more than just one way. There is the obvious direct comparison. We can not only see that the closer that an animal is to us the more similar we are to it, that sort of relationship occurs for all life. All life falls upon a phylogenetic tree when one analyzes its DNA. The tree is not 'lines on paper". It is where the data plots out. Another genetic test are endogenous retroviruses. Here and there, extremely rarely, a distant ancestor of ours got ill. It picked up a retrovirus. Retroviruses do not always work when they get into our cells. Occasionally they are duds. When that happens with a gamete they can become part of the genome and are passed on. They are called endogenous retroviruses. It forms the only valid odds argument that I know of in evolution and it supports the concept. We share retroviruses with our closest relatives. They can be located and numbered. So an ancient ancestor of ours had the exact same disease as say the ancestor of chimps. Not only that but it is in the exact same spot in our genomes. The odds against a match are incredibly huge if it was two separate cases of infection. But not only that. There are on the order of 200 identified identical ERV"s the last time that I checked. So that mean you would have to multiply that fantastically large number against itself 200 times if they were just random infections. Or, if we share an ancestor it is exactly what we would expect to see.

DNA Evidence For Evolution: Endogenous Retroviruses • Stated Clearly

An Endogenous Retrovirus is a genetic scar left by certain types of virus infections. We can use Endogenous Retroviruses to build evolutionary trees.

www.statedclearly.com

And if you want to see an article that goes over quite a few of the different sorts of evidence for evolution (and yes they include fossils) you can read this. You can see that there is no need for fossil evidence at all. DNA alone is enough. ERV's are a total slam dunk:

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Quintessence]

So by "reasonable doubt" you really mean "the point at which it becomes statistically improbable for otherwise to be the case" which is not quite the same thing. What is and isn't reasonable is a bit more subjective than that. But don't mind me, I'm being annoyingly pedantic.

 

[shunyadragon]

So by "reasonable doubt" you really mean "the point at which it becomes statistically improbable for otherwise to be the case" which is not quite the same thing. What is and isn't reasonable is a bit more subjective than that. But don't mind me, I'm being annoyingly pedantic.

I consider reasonable doubt OK, and do not necessarily assume "the point at which it becomes statistically improbable for otherwise to be the case" It is used here to avoid such nonsense calling it proven or the 'Truth.' Of course, scientists like myself do not deal with this language when discussing science in any form. but you need to consider the comprehension level or lack of comprehension level of the audience here.

Even in Law "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a statistical result.

The issue is there is no viable alternative theory or whatever that explains the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I consider reasonable doubt OK, and do not necessarily assume "the point at which it becomes statistically improbable for otherwise to be the case" It is used here to avoid such nonsense calling it proven or the 'Truth.' Of course, scientists like myself do not deal with this language when discussing science in any form. but you need to consider the comprehension level or lack of comprehension level of the audience here.

The issue is there is no viable alternative theory or whatever that explains the evidence.

That is why I used scare quotes around the word prove. It is because those who this is aimed at always demand "proof". In criminal trials the prosecution also realizes that there is no absolute proof of anyone doing a crime. That is why the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

At any rate the article that dealt with endogenous retroviruses did an odds calculation of all of the known shared retroviruses that we have with chimpanzees and found that the odds of it happening are far less likely than any of the bad math figures that creationists use in such arguments. The difference is that every argument that they make using odds has always had a fatal flaw. The most common one is assuming that mankind was the goal rather than a result.

If anyone wants to see just the video I can post that separately.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The issue is there is no viable alternative theory or whatever that explains the evidence.

The issue here is that there have been innumerable "debates" and I have yet to see evidence that they've proved worth the effort.
It's simply a case of one side trying to prove that they're clever while the other side succeeds in confirming that they are anything but.

[edit: corrected grammar]

 

[shunyadragon]

The issue here is that there has been innumerable "debates" and I yet to see evidence that they've proved worth the effort.
It's simply a case of one side trying to prove that they're clever while the other side succeeds in confirming that they are anything but.

Huh?~?~?~?

 

[shunyadragon]

The issue here is that there have been innumerable "debates" and I have yet to see evidence that they've proved worth the effort.
It's simply a case of one side trying to prove that they're clever while the other side succeeds in confirming that they are anything but.

[edit: corrected grammar]

Still does not make sense. The only thing I can see is your getting a lot of splinters in your butt.

 

[McBell]

The issue here is that there have been innumerable "debates" and I have yet to see evidence that they've proved worth the effort.
It's simply a case of one side trying to prove that they're clever while the other side succeeds in confirming that they are anything but.

[edit: corrected grammar]

I have learned quite a bit from lurking those "debates"...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have learned quite a bit from lurking those "debates"...

I sometimes learn when a creationist makes what seems to be a good point. Though that has not happened in years. Still it forces on to keep one's knowledge at least somewhat up to date. Though an amazingly high percentage of creationist arguments are fifty years old or older.

 

[Quintessence]

I sometimes learn when a creationist makes what seems to be a good point. Though that has not happened in years. Still it forces on to keep one's knowledge at least somewhat up to date. Though an amazingly high percentage of creationist arguments are fifty years old or older.

I mean, it depends on how you delineate who is and isn't a "creationist." In the broader sense of the term, any theist who acknowledges the gods have a role in the making and changing of reality is a creationist. It's not fundamentally incompatible with accepting biological evolution either, but many wouldn't know that given how "creationist" as used in this culture nearly always just means "Biblical creation myth literalist" rather than the broader sense of what creationism is. That's unfortunate, given how many different mythologies there are about change and origins in cultures worldwide and how many folks understand these stories are about relationships, encode ritual practices, and so on rather than being taken literally. Those are the interesting conversations I'd like to see happen, but those will almost certainly never happen in THIS subforum. They might in Interfaith Discussion though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean, it depends on how you delineate who is and isn't a "creationist." In the broader sense of the term, any theist who acknowledges the gods have a role in the making and changing of reality is a creationist. It's not fundamentally incompatible with accepting biological evolution either, but many wouldn't know that given how "creationist" as used in this culture nearly always just means "Biblical creation myth literalist" rather than the broader sense of what creationism is. That's unfortunate, given how many different mythologies there are about change and origins in cultures worldwide and how many folks understand these stories are about relationships, encode ritual practices, and so on rather than being taken literally. Those are the interesting conversations I'd like to see happen, but those will almost certainly never happen in THIS subforum. They might in Interfaith Discussion though.

I tend to go by the original meaning of the term. A creationist is a special sort of science denier. A creationist is one that denies the theory of evolution due to outdated religious beliefs. Guess who first came up with the term.

 

[GardenLady]

I tend to go by the original meaning of the term. A creationist is a special sort of science denier. A creationist is one that denies the theory of evolution due to outdated religious beliefs. Guess who first came up with the term.

I'm going to object, though you and I often agree. I agree with Quintessence. While I would accede to your definition if you said YOUNG EARTH creationist, or Genesis literalist, it is inaccurate for many creationists.

I am a creationist, in the sense that I believe God had a hand in the creation of the universe and all life. There are many Christians who take the view of "God is who, evolution is how." I don't know the details, nor do I feel a need to. But I accept the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang, deep time, and the evolution of life. I think it would be cool if scientists can eventually solve the question of abiogenesis.

The majority of Christians may believe God had a hand in creation but are not science deniers. The YEC are so persistent and vocal that they tend to drown out the more reasoned Christian believers. Please don't lump all believers who think God had a hand in creation in the bucket of the definition quoted above. I don't know that it is the "original" definition; rather, I think it is a usurped definition.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Here we go again...DNA is the best evidence for evolution.

The most modern claim of support for evolution is RNA is it not?

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work

The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence that is overwhelmingly in their favour.

One of the biggies here is information. There is no chance that throwing even a bunch of letters on a page randomly will ever result in useful code that can do something. Every example of information in the living cell tells us someone had to code it.

As a test, can you provide an laboratory example where genetic information/code has spontaneously appeared from a bunch of even the correct combination of chemicals (oh and note we are jumping a step by providing those chemicals in the first place)

One of the more recent acknowledgements among science is that aliens did in fact come down to the primordial soup and throw a few suitable ingredients into it for evolution to commence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to object, though you and I often agree. I agree with Quintessence. While I would accede to your definition if you said YOUNG EARTH creationist, or Genesis literalist, it is inaccurate for many creationists.

I am a creationist, in the sense that I believe God had a hand in the creation of the universe and all life. There are many Christians who take the view of "God is who, evolution is how." I don't know the details, nor do I feel a need to. But I accept the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang, deep time, and the evolution of life. I think it would be cool if scientists can eventually solve the question of abiogenesis.

The majority of Christians may believe God had a hand in creation but are not science deniers. The YEC are so persistent and vocal that they tend to drown out the more reasoned Christian believers. Please don't lump all believers who think God had a hand in creation in the bucket of the definition quoted above. I don't know that it is the "original" definition; rather, I think it is a usurped definition.

Okay, then by the original meaning of the word you are not a "creationist". That term was coined by Darwin himself and it was used to describe people that rejected evolution based solely upon their religious beliefs. I often try to make it clear that I am using the original definition of the term. Language, like life, evolves so the original meaning of a word is not necessarily the only definition. So I am not saying that your definition is wrong. I am giving you a heads up what I mean by the term.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Here we go again...DNA is the best evidence for evolution.

The most modern claim of support for evolution is RNA is it not?

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work rather than supporting it.

The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence thst is overwhelmingly in their favour.

One of the biggies here is information. There is no chance that throwing even a bunch of letters on a page randomly will ever result in useful code that can do something. Every example of information in the living cell tells us someone had to code it.

As a test, can you provide an laboratory example where genetic information/code has spontaneously appeared from a bunch of even the correct combination of chemicals (oh and note we are jumping a step by providing those chemicals in the first place)

One of the more recent acknowledgements among science is that aliens did in fact come down to the primordial soup and throw a few ingredients into it for evolution to commence.

Then there is the mutation problem. Each time our body copies...a little bit of information is corrupted and usually lost. A small amount of the broken code is passed on down to the next generation.

This is the complete opposite of evolution. If we are currently observing ongoing corruption of code...how the heck can nothing have randomly evolved into a massive amount of code we find in our DNA today when studies show its currently de-evolving?

An illustration in computer hardware of the kind of code rebuilding fail-safe is a raid drive system. For the purpose of correcting corrupt code, at least 3 drives are needed...two drives only mirror whats already there on the opposite drive...thus copying existing corruptable information. In a 3 drive system, any two drives can be used fo rebuild the code on the third...however as I said...we have but 2 parents...not 3...so ours is a system that only mirrors the code that is already in our parents.

in the event of really really bad corruption, the only available option is for total loss to weed out the really bad offspring (Ie no further reproduction and/or death of the individual/or race). Trouble is, again, purity is always being lost...De evolving.

Uniformitarianism has shot itself in the foot here.

Also, the claim that natural selection weeds out the corrupt code is flawed...it does not deny that some corrupt code is still passed on corrupting the purity of tye next generation...that is proven to be true. The problem is, each time a little bit is passed on, the purity of the next generation is reduced. There is no master alongside from which to draw pure code to correct the downward spiral of corruption...and this is because we get half our code from different parents. This problem actually supports creation and God and it certainly supports the biblical claim of the wages of sin. It also supports the statement that biblically man is mortal and sin is increasingly corrupting us (I am not claiming we are going to become extinct any time soon)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again...DNA is the best evidence for evolution.

The most modern claim of support for evolution is RNA is it not?

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work rather supports it.

The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence thst is overwhelmingly in their favour.

Okay this sounds a bit "word salad"y. But let me correct the one error that is clear. RNA is evidence for abiogenesis. When you are talkng about life that we can apply the theory of evolution to that would be life that had developed DNA.

And what, if any evidence do you think that you have for creationism? I need to remind you that to even have any evidence at all you first need a testable hypothesis. What is your hypothesis of creationism? What possible test could refute it?

One of the biggies here is information. There is no chance that throwing even a bunch of letters on a page randomly will ever result in useful code that can do something. Every example of information in the living cell tells us someone had to code it.

Now you are making an equivocation fallacy. You are using varying definitions of "information". This is another area where creationists fail. Also the DNA code is not a manmade code. Again, this is another equivocation fallacy.

As a test, can you provide an laboratory example where genetic information/code has spontaneously appeared from a bunch of even the correct combination of chemicals (oh and note we are jumping a step by providing those chemicals in the first place)

And now you have a strawman argument along with your other errors. No one on the evolution side says that information appears spontaneously. Do you not even know what the word "evolution" means? It is a change in a preexisting state. That is why abiogenesis is a related, but separate topic. Life as we know it did not exist at one point. But once we have life as we know it we can understand how it evolves quite well.

At any rate since you used a strawman of evolution your test if of no value and would not be evidence for anything.

One of the more recent acknowledgements among science is that aliens did in fact come down to the primordial soup and throw a few ingredients into it for evolution to commence.

No, that has not been acknowledged. Citation required.

Then there is the mutation problem. Each time our body copies...a little bit of information is corrupted and usually lost. A small amount of the borken code is passed on down to the next generation.

No, it is not "lost". It is changed. The information is still there. And do you think that matters? You are obviously unaware of a common form of mutation called "gene duplication". That is where a whole long string of DNA is copied and added on to the genome. As a result one may have multiple genes that do the same thing. That is how critical genes are thought to have evolved. If a gene is copied it does not matter if one of the copies undergoes mutation. The other gene will still do the job. Meanwhile there is a possibility of that now mutated and evolved gene can do another job. It may even take a few mutations of a copy but sooner or later one copy somewhere in millions if not billions of individuals will stumble on a new possible use for an old gene. That now beneficial gene can become eventually fixed in the population as a positive mutation.

This is the complete opposite of evolution. If we are currently observing ongoing corruption of code...how the heck can nothing have randomly evolved into a massive amount of code we find in our DNA today when studies show its currently de-evolving?

That is because you are once again using an inaccurate strawman. Don't do that. If you think that you have a refutation of evolution you should ask in a separate post.

Also, the claim that natural selection weeds out the corrupt code is flawed...it does not deny that some corrupt code is srill passed on...that is proven to be true. The problem is, each time a little bit is passed on, the purity of the next generation is reduced. There is no master alongside from which to draw pure code to correct the downward spiral of corruption! This actually supportd creation and God and it certainly supports the biblical claim of the wages of sin. It also supports the statement that biblically man is mortal and sin is increasingly corrupting us (I am not claiming we are going to become extinct any time soon)

And again, this is a strawman argument. You are assuming that the current code was a goal. That was not the case. It was a result. So a "lack of purity" is not a problem. If something works better the odds are that it will replace the genes that are not as efficient. If it does not then the organism will be out competed and eventually the less efficient genes are lost. That is evolution. A positive change, that depends upon the environment. Don't think of humans as a goal. That is an error. Think of humans as a result.

If you want more details on any of these answers you need to ask one at a time. But there is more info available.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I need to remind you that to even have any evidence at all you first need a testable hypothesis

I think you should be more concerned about the de evolution of genetic code within our DNA.

Please explain how the passing on of corrupt code thus reducing purity is in fact gaining new information?

Secondly, from the accepted model of uniformstarianism, please answer this...if we are losing purity, how the heck did we start from no code and get to the top of the sinewave of code before we started losing it? There doesn't appear to be any evidence we can test to show gaining new information.