The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

The problem is that your religious beliefs are keeping you from seeing the obvious. They can do that. They will make otherwise honest people appear to be dishonest. You say that you cannot see evidence, but the evidence is undeniable. That means that you probably do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Before you can learn you need the basics first.

Don't be too embarrassed by this. It is part of the human condition. Scientists have a well defined definition of evidence. It appears to have a low bar one must cross and there are mountains of evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Here it is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

First of all, don't be concerned about embarrassing me (in case you were). Thanks to the scriptures, I have complete confidence in who I am. But thanks for the thought anyway.

Could you give me some of the evidence that is at least part of the foothill of the mountains? Try to ignore my religious beliefs and just talk to me as though I'm your open minded student wanting to learn.

 

[rrobs]

The mixing of concepts and theories is often and widely carried out by those that reject some or all the theories in order to confuse discussion. Many times I have seen the origin of life erroneously used to reject the theory of evolution. But the theory of evolution is an independent theory and not predicated on a specific origin of life. People can have different views of how life originated, but that has no impact on the theory of evolution.

Try to forget what I may or may not believe. I only wanted to know if cosmology, biological origins, and biological evolution are related. On the surface it would seem yes, but I'm understanding you to say they are not. If so, I'll defer to you since you are the scientist and I'm not.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, but is a big "So what?" A god could have magically poofed the first life into existence. The source of first life does not matter to evolution.

Why do you keep bringing up God? I thought we were talking about the latest research in evolution, looking for evidence I didn't get before. You said you'd help me.

 

[rrobs]

Leading questions about relationships between cosmological origins, the origin of life, and evolution are yours. I have not commented on relationships, obvious or otherwise. I am pointing out that implying dependence is incorrect.

Well, we seem to be at a stalemate. When I ask sincere questions, you say they are leading questions. Geez, maybe you could help me ask the right questions? I'm wondering if you don't really know much more about evolution than myself. I'm not saying, just wondering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, don't be concerned about embarrassing me (in case you were). Thanks to the scriptures, I have complete confidence in who I am. But thanks for the thought anyway.

Could you give me some of the evidence that is at least part of the foothill of the mountains? Try to ignore my religious beliefs and just talk to me as though I'm your open minded student wanting to learn.

Have you seen the fossil skulls that led to people:

That is only one very small snippet of the evidence available.

Edit: The chimpanzee skull is there for comparison to one of our near relatives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you keep bringing up God? I thought we were talking about the latest research in evolution, looking for evidence I didn't get before. You said you'd help me.

Because your denial is clearly based upon your religious beliefs. Also you were the one that objected to evolution based upon abiogenesis. The point was that that is not a problem for evolution.

 

[rrobs]

Have you seen the fossil skulls that led to people:

That is only one very small snippet of the evidence available.

Edit: The chimpanzee skull is there for comparison to one of our near relatives.

That seems to show an ape skull is similar to a human skull. I'm not so sure it proves that one evolved into the other though. But, as you said, this is only a very small snippet of evidence. It's just not enough for me to see how belief in evolution is any different than a belief in Genesis or an alien landing for that matter. What am I missing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That seems to show an ape skull is similar to a human skull. I'm not so sure it proves that one evolved into the other though. But, as you said, this is only a very small snippet of evidence. It's just not enough for me to see how belief in evolution is any different than a belief in Genesis or an alien landing for that matter. What am I missing?

Forget the word "prove" right now since you are not using it properly anyway. The fact is that those are evidence for evolution. Can you see that?

 

[rrobs]

Forget the word "prove" right now since you are not using it properly anyway. The fact is that those are evidence for evolution. Can you see that?

I could see how some would say it is evidence for evolution, but I think it is stronger evidence that a ape skull is similar to a human skull. The former does require faith, whereas the latter is pretty clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could see how some would say it is evidence for evolution, but I think it is stronger evidence that a ape skull is similar to a human skull. The former does require faith, whereas the latter is pretty clear.

No, it is not a matter of "some would say". The reason that scientists came up with that particular definition of evidence is so that one could objectively say whether an observation is evidence or not. You only have to ask yourself two questions. First is the concept a testable concept. That means is there a test, based upon the idea's own merits, that could refute it if it is wrong. In the case of evolution the answer is yes. There are quite a few tests that could show it to be wrong. The second is "Does this observation support (or oppose for evidence against) the theory?" . And again the answer is yes.

Scientific evidence has that definition to keep scientists honest because they are people too and can make the same sort of errors that you make.

So, one more time. Are those skulls evidence for evolution?

EDIT: No faith needed. Calling it faith is a personal attack against scientists and one that you would have to prove. That was technically a violation of the Ninth Commandment on your part. Not necessarily lying, but definitely bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Try to forget what I may or may not believe. I only wanted to know if cosmology, biological origins, and biological evolution are related. On the surface it would seem yes, but I'm understanding you to say they are not. If so, I'll defer to you since you are the scientist and I'm not.

The origin of the universe, the origin of life and evolution are related. No one claims they are not. I have not claimed that.

The universe has to exist for life, as we know it, to exist. Biological evolution cannot take place where no biological forms exist, procreate and pass on heritable traits. It is the nature of the relationship that matters. The theories that explain those phenomena are independent. The validity of the theory of evolution is not dependent on a specific origin of the universe or specific origin of life. Conflating those is often a tactic to confuse and to eliminate by association where no evidence for rejection ecists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, we seem to be at a stalemate. When I ask sincere questions, you say they are leading questions. Geez, maybe you could help me ask the right questions? I'm wondering if you don't really know much more about evolution than myself. I'm not saying, just wondering.

Are you interested or not? I am wondering if this is all a sham for typical creationist tactics. I'm not ssying, just wondering.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could see how some would say it is evidence for evolution, but I think it is stronger evidence that a ape skull is similar to a human skull. The former does require faith, whereas the latter is pretty clear.

If conclusions are based on evidence, logic and established principles, where is the faith that you are claiming.

Since you reject evolution, it would be better if you made your argument and explained it all to me. I am open to read it and waiting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That seems to show an ape skull is similar to a human skull. I'm not so sure it proves that one evolved into the other though. But, as you said, this is only a very small snippet of evidence. It's just not enough for me to see how belief in evolution is any different than a belief in Genesis or an alien landing for that matter. What am I missing?

Does belief in Genesis have skulls or other physical evidence to compare and contrast for dupport?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you seen the fossil skulls that led to people:

That is only one very small snippet of the evidence available.

Edit: The chimpanzee skull is there for comparison to one of our near relatives.

I think it is important to point out that these skulls are found in strata of established age that does not include skulls of more recent age. There is progression across time revealed in the photo.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Forget the word "prove" right now since you are not using it properly anyway. The fact is that those are evidence for evolution. Can you see that?

Prove. It's always prove. Those that reject science are clearly not doing it on the basis of an understanding of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is important to point out that these skulls are found in strata of established age that does not include skulls of more recent age. There is progression across time revealed in the photo.

I should have included that fact. I am waiting to see if he can admit that they are objective evidence for evolution or not.

One thing that I like about scientific evidence is that once one meets the basics it puts the burden of proof upon the person trying to deny it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That seems to show an ape skull is similar to a human skull. I'm not so sure it proves that one evolved into the other though. But, as you said, this is only a very small snippet of evidence. It's just not enough for me to see how belief in evolution is any different than a belief in Genesis or an alien landing for that matter. What am I missing?

If you were trying to establish a relationship between a group of items would consider similarity of any value to your task?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove. It's always prove. Those that reject science are clearly not doing it on the basis of an understanding of science.

Ironically that statement always "proves" that the person does not understand the sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I should have included that fact. I am waiting to see if he can admit that they are objective evidence for evolution or not.

One thing that I like about scientific evidence is that once one meets the basics it puts the burden of proof upon the person trying to deny it.

It is not easy to include every detail. I was reminded of the basis for past rejections using the same evidence and thought of value to point out.