Proof of evolution -at last-

[sayak83]

Hi I would love to discuss this topic with you. Do you wish that I get a particular book on evolution to use or might we simply start a discussion on the main points of evolution? Propositions on how life originated, the fossil record, natural selection, mutations in the genome, Information in DNA, or the like? I'm not sure which subject would be the most productive to start with. Do you have a preference. Since most of those who believe in natural evolution consider it a fact and not a theory perhaps we could start with some contemporary proofs that you know of so that I may pose my questions about it. I assume your pro natural evolution?

Origin of life is a different discipline and not part of evolutionary biology. So we will not cover the topic.
The reason I prefer a reliable college level book is that any discussion here in the forum is necessary limited and can only augment (and not supplement) the understanding provided through reading a good book. It also helps to guide the discussion in a way that has a logical flow. So, is it possible for you to access a college level book on evolutionary biology? I can suggest a few names that I have, but it also depends on what you can access.

 

[Valjean]

There are theories -- evidently not factually duplicated on any other planet that "WE" see, but it's all theoretical unproven, literally, yes literally unduplicated in science.

Huh?

 

[SA Huguenot]

This is the biggest lie that creationist ministries manage to sell to their subscriptors.

Go look at the Dover trial.
One side (science) had mountains of evidence for evolution.
The other side had to redefine wat "science" is to be able to call their ID nonsense "science". The funny side-effect of this redefining is that suddenly astrology (you know: horoscopes and stuff) qualified as well.



They were addressed head on at the Dover trial. They are addressed head on, always. But creationists tend to have selective memory.



Right, right. And religions with no evidence are bad, off course.

So instead you believe bronze age tale about a first man and woman who didn't have biological parents who lived as immortals in a magical garden where they were convinced by the talking snake to eat a magic fruit they weren't supposed to eat and suddenly there was death and pestilance in the world.

Yes, yes, that sounds much better then a "religion with no evidence".

TNX for the info.
However, the Dover trial are not somehow evidence that Creation is incorrect or not scientific true.
It is a determination by court that ID furthers one religion, and the state can not allow bias in this regard.
Anyhow, I will go through the trail and look at the details therein to establish your claim that they found ID "nonsense"

 

[firedragon]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

Good post. I enjoyed reading your sarcasm.

I have a question. I still did not understand the evidence against evolution. If you could direct me to a post of yours where you explain the evidence I will be grateful. But its not a requirement. If you have time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

TNX for the info.
However, the Dover trial are not somehow evidence that Creation is incorrect or not scientific true.

It was demonstrated that ID is just creationism dishonestly disguised in a lab-coat masquerading as science.
Instead, it's just the same religious pseudo-scientific nonsense as its creationist predecessor.

Meanwhile, evolution was demonstrated to be very established, very solid science.

To nobody's surprise who has no invested interest in denying reality, I might add.

It is a determination by court that ID furthers one religion, and the state can not allow bias in this regard.

The trial was about it being science or not, to be able to "teach" it in science classes in school.
The outcome was that ID is a reincarnation of plain old creationism and thus shouldn't be taught as science, because it isn't. It's religion.

Evolution can be taught as science, because it is solid science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything is related if you're going to look at it that way. We all have minerals that are in the ground. So -- everything is related.

False equivocation.

Chimps and humans are related in specific genetic ways.
The kind of way that means that they share biological ancestors.

Although minerals and atoms don't really talk. At least not to my knowledge, although Jesus said if the disciples didn't speak out, the stones would. Remember that? Obviously that was a metaphor, but it sure did mean something.

As for evidence, frankly speaking -- when I look at and read the Bible, it really does show me that God exists.
That He had a very specific relationship with many, and the disciples were to tell others about Jesus, who believed in God, his Father and superior. Obviously this is not everybody's reaction.

Likely it's not everybody's reaction, because it is just subjective opinion.
And feelings about a story - which you haven even begun to try and show to be an actual reflection of reality.
Of many things in there, especially when read literally, we actually know for a fact that it isn't true.

Like the flood. It factually never occurred as described therein.


All these are just stories. Claims. They aren't evidence. They are the claims that require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reading about discovery of fish in Japan I believe, said to be a new species -- they're still fish.

How many times have I already told you that if a fish would produce anything other then a fish, it would DISPROVE evolution?


This is how I know that you are not being honest in this conversation.
This has been repeated to you so many times, I'ld be insulting your intelligence if I were to assume that you still haven't learned this.

In evolution, you never outgrow your ancestry.
Every new species is always a subspecies of the ancestral species.
In evolution, species don't jump branches.
Cats don't evolve into dogs.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

You want evidence (and this is @ you also @74x12, @Wildswanderer, @SA Huguenot, and @cladking)? Bear down into and read up all about "endogenous retroviruses" and, specifically, the case they make for human beings' descent from a prior ape species. An ancestor that is proven to also be common to a great many other ape species alive today.

And this proven specifically due to the prevalence of these retroviruses which match by viral progenitor and unique placement within the genetic sequence in many tens of thousands of instances. Far too many to deny the statistical significance once one also understands the mechanisms that are behind the appearance of these viral DNA bits.

If you can understand the majority of the scope of this research and its findings, then this is basically "smoking gun" style evidence for common descent, and, by extension, evolution itself. This is one I believe cannot be denied without a very heavy dose of irrationality.

 

[tas8831]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

Awwww, you poor thing.

Were you expecting people to suddenly drop to their knees and join your religion because you used a selective quote from a single biologist with some fringe views?

It is almost as if you were unaware that there are many many many people out there that were not brainwashed into your belief system as a child/post-trauma, and who actually took the time to learn about things rather than parrot creationists websites and preachers.

 

[tas8831]

Oh. And the fact that certain elements can combine more or less automatically again -- does not prove evolution. Especially of the natural selection kind. It proves (or shows) that certain elements can automatically attract or attach or ignite into something more than the individual elements. (Big deal. OK, it is a big deal. But it's NOT proof of evolution OR abiogenesis. Yes, have a good night.)

Cool how the desperate and uninformed creationists so frequently conflate abiogenesis and evolution.

What's next? Going to claim that Miller's experiments failed to produce life therefore bible stories are true?

 

[tas8831]

I also find it deceiving on how so called "Scientists" will make statements that Arti and Lucy is [sic] the final fact that humans evolved from hominids.

"the final fact"??? What on earth are you rambling about?

Especially when they dont tell you the "400 discovered fossil specimens" of Ardipithecus are mostly 400 scraps of teeth and bones which they sell as 400 specimens.

Tell me about YOUR expertise in anatomy. Tell us all how little you know about information that can be gleaned from small bits of things.

Do not conflate YOUR ignorance with the knowledge of people that do this sort of thing for a living.

You appear not to accept evolution because what you present is largely a strawman version of it.

 

[cladking]

And this proven specifically due to the prevalence of these retroviruses which match by viral progenitor and unique placement within the genetic sequence in many tens of thousands of instances. Far too many to deny the statistical significance once one also understands the mechanisms that are behind the appearance of these viral DNA bits.

If you can understand the majority of the scope of this research and its findings, then this is basically "smoking gun" style evidence for common descent, and, by extension, evolution itself. This is one I believe cannot be denied without a very heavy dose of irrationality.

I'd certainly consider spending several weeks of my life researching this if you can provide a nutshell description of how this supports a gradual change in a major species cause by survival of the fittest.

I believe "Evolution" is a religion and am no more likely to drop everything I'm doing and studying this than I am delve into Druidism.

All observed change in all life at all levels and types at all times is sudden. All individuals are equally fit. Darwin is the founder of a religion.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

What in scientific terms is your claim?

It's not a theory, as it is restricted to the nomenclature of an 'argument'. But how would you feel about the Simulation Argument filling that role? The Fibonacci Sequence being the line of code that dictates how DNA (among many other forms of matter) is structured.

The Simulation Argument is an interesting collaboration of the creator idea as well as the natural development of all the things we experience and perceive.

 

[tas8831]

I'd certainly consider spending several weeks of my life researching this if you can provide a nutshell description of how this supports a gradual change in a major species cause by survival of the fittest.

Please define 'survival of the fittest' in an evolutionary context.

You claimed speciation is caused by behavior - then claimed you'd never said that. That is the sort of person creationism draws to its ranks,.

History shows that you employ a false definition to fit your agenda, despite being shown you are in error or corrected dozens of times.

Examples:
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019*
2020


and so on - these are just a few examples just from my interactions. Many others have also tried to educate you, to no avail.

*this one is good for I also document a straight up fib...

 

[tas8831]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

It is a good thing that you did not aspire to be scientifically accurate in any way - in that, you succeeded, as most creationists do.

But plagiarism?

Tsk tsk... That reeks of dishonesty, desperation, and ignorance.

That is, it reeks of creationism.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting point about human predecessors. Like parents closer to?? Gorillas? Bonobos? etc.

It is amazing to me how little creationists who have been at this for years or decades still have no clue about what evolution actually indicates/explains.

 

[tas8831]

I used to believe that about evolution. I no longer do.

Church sermonizin' worked, eh?

 

[tas8831]

Attacking Darwin and making up refuted claims about him does nothing to the theory of evolution. He is not a high priest or prophet of some religion on whose image science rests.

At least that is what you appear to be supporting. Who knows?

RE: high priest -
Creationists project when they imply or state things like this, or when they claim evolution is a religion. Because that is all they understand. They cannot accept that people may accept evidence for something that they do not understand and thus THOSE people must be religious - just like they are. It is a subconscious attempt to drag all down to their intellectual level.

 

[tas8831]

... Evolutionist have only one argument to defend their religion.

And it seems that religionists have a single, sad fallback - accuse those that accept and understand the science of being in a religion.

Just.
Like.
They.
Are.

let me assist you for I know that evolutionists believe they are more primitive than their children.
Evolutionists say: "Creationists are not scientists".
They completely ignore the fact that these creationists also have their PHD's etc.

OK, did they earn those PhDs in creationism research?

What is their area of research - after all, that is how one gets a PhD in science. If a creationist has a PhD in economics, or forestry management, or chemistry - so what?

They also ignore the fact that the scientist who dont believe in evolution, does not do so because of lack of evidence for creation, but because of scientific lack of evidence and bias mixed with immagination, and self worshipping narsiscism by evolutionists who dont hesitate to push the simplest fossil down our throats as evidence that higher intelligent life and IQ developed from simple unguided natural processes.

Scientists who are creationists are creationists first, scientists second. This is seen in the 'statement of faith' that creationists are required to abide by in order to join creationist groups or publish essays in creationist journals. Surely, you know about this?

They will not hesitate to tell anyone that an extinct ape tooth, of scull, even if clearly not human, are humanoids and had human feet because we found human footprints 800 miles away from our ape scull.
Pure speculation.

More like extrapolation.

I once read a book by one of those scientists you refer to. Marsh was his name. He tried to impugn the expertise of paleoanthropologists like you're doing here. He used broken pottery as an example - you come across some bits of broken pottery and they can go together to form all kinds of shapes, so how can one find a piece of a bone and reconstruct a whole creature from it!

1. Marsh was a botanist so had no business comment in on the issue.
2. Depending on the bone, how much of the bone, etc., a LOT of information can be gleaned providing you are not some layman whining about it because you can't understand it. I am by no means an expert on osteology, but I do have an anatomy background. I can look at a bone like this:

And I can glean the following:
- hominid primate (dental formula 2-1-2-3)
- not human - mandible come to a 'point' internally, human mandibles are more rounded
- probably an omnivore leaning toward herbivory (large, flattened and worn molars)
- apparent large size of muscular insertion on outer surface near molars indicative of large muscles - as this is a primate, a large masseter - implies herbivory

And this just from a cursory glance at one surface of one bone. Imagine if this was my area of expertise and was able to study the bone close up for an extended period? Add to that knowing the context (e.g., where it was found, its estimated date, etc.).

Point is - stop projecting YOUR ignorance onto people that have years or decades of training and experience.

Then we have creationists who point these falsifications out, and guess what they are accused off:..

What falsifications?
Oh, you mean your mere doubt about things that you don't understand?

That is not a 'falsification.' A falsification is like what happened to YEC Jeff Tomkins re: his claim about the beta globin pseudogene being functional..

 

[tas8831]

So for you to come here and create a new thread by cherry picking a couple comments that made you feel buthurt, and thereby dishonestly pretend as if all other posts weren't part of the course, is pretty childish.

This is what they do, isn't it? Just like those morons in trucks whining about non-existent mandates.