What are the "facts" of Evolution?

[outhouse]

Aquatic life adapting to both fresh water and salt water.

not so much

when it comes to marine biology most of what you have is from a stable enviroment that has been stable for millions of years.

fresh water always has led to the ocean via rivers and we have always had life adaptingthat way. its nothing new.

there are also no huge enviromental impacts that are stretching this evolution further

 

[Biblestudent_007]

This is like asking, what are the facts of cosmology? . . Make a list please. I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone here is up to doing your homework for you. The "facts" of evolution can only be appreciated when one understands how it works, and without an understanding the facts probably wouldn't mean squat to you, so making list would be a waste of time.

I am doing my homework.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Maybe. Do you believe neanderthal's existed? And if you do, do you realize they weren't homo sapiens? With that said, they resemble a man more than an ape or chimpanzee, so would this prove that somewhere there was a transition?

Its most likely that ancient neanderthal cavemen once existed as small nomadic tribes.

 

[outhouse]

Its most likely that ancient neanderthal cavemen once existed as small nomadic tribes.

I dont think anyone can argue that

except that all neanderthals were not cavemen

 

[Shadow Wolf]

not so much

when it comes to marine biology most of what you have is from a stable enviroment that has been stable for millions of years.

fresh water always has led to the ocean via rivers and we have always had life adaptingthat way. its nothing new.

there are also no huge enviromental impacts that are stretching this evolution further

Yes so. It indeed proves evolution since there are only 40-some species of sharks that can survive in both, and some forms of aquatic life today are still adapting to both. And the OP asked for general proof and not for any specific time of which it happened.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

According to biology scientists, what are three primary reasons I should gradually come to accept ToE?

 

[Valjean]

Why gradually? What withholds you currently?

What other plausible explanation is there?

 

[tumbleweed41]

According to biology scientists, what are three primary reasons I should gradually come to accept ToE?

Biological evolution is not some religious belief you should need convincing to accept.

It is an observable, testable, predicable fact of nature.

The question is, are you content to remain willfully ignorant of this fact?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Why gradually? What withholds you currently?

What other plausible explanation is there?

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

It is an observable, testable, predicable fact of nature.

If that is true, I'm probably gradually learning to accept it.

The question is, are you content to remain willfully ignorant of this fact?

No, I'm still learning about ToE.

How are we in modern times any different than the people of ancient civilizations?

 

[Gunfingers]

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

A "modern trend"? It was proposed over 150 years ago, and is accepted by experts in the field almost universally. That's neither modern nor trendy.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

I can understand that as a "trend" one might hesitate to board ship, but that does not change the fact that evolutionary theory is very much in harmony with matter of fact reality.

I don't see why ToE would be incompatible with the God/Creator perspective. I can see how it might be incompatible with a God-type that has a very limited view of his/her own creation though.

 

[Valjean]

I have reservations about ToE because its a "modern trend."

But it's neither modern, as Gunfingers pointed out, nor a trend.
Plate tectonics, aerodynamics and quantum theory are modern. ToE -- not so new.

To me, its plausible that God/Creator is the author of all biological life.

But what does this have to do with the ToE? Hasn't this disconnect been pointed out several times?
ToE is about mechanism, not agency. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Curious that no-one's up in arms about plate tectonics as an explanation of Mountains and earthquakes. God may be proposed as the agent of these just as easily as He's credited with biological diversity.

 

[waitasec]

Here, let me google that for you.
Let me google that for you

:biglaugh:
frubals

 

[Copernicus]

Curious that no-one's up in arms about plate tectonics as an explanation of Mountains and earthquakes. God may be proposed as the agent of these just as easily as He's credited with biological diversity.

The problem with the ToE is that it provides an alternative explanation of how we came into being. Before Darwin, there was no very good explanation of where all that wonderful biological diversity came from. How could such intricate, complex "designs" have emerged without the guiding hand of an intelligent agency of some sort? Darwin answered that question. Plate tectonics can explain earthquakes and mountains, but it does not provide a comprehensive alternative explanation of our very existence.

 

[Skwim]

The problem with the ToE is that it provides an alternative explanation of how we came into being. Before Darwin, there was no very good explanation of where all that wonderful biological diversity came from. How could such intricate, complex "designs" have emerged without the guiding hand of an intelligent agency of some sort? Darwin answered that question. Plate tectonics can explain earthquakes and mountains, but it does not provide a comprehensive alternative explanation of our very existence.

Why is this a problem with ToE?

 

[Copernicus]

Why is this a problem with ToE?

If you want to maintain a belief in intelligent design, it is a problem. It were better if there were no good alternative explanations for those folks. Hence, the intensity of the reaction against Darwin's theory ever since it came to public awareness.

 

[Skwim]

If you want to maintain a belief in intelligent design, it is a problem.

But that's not the theory's problem. It's a problem for those who recognize its logic while at the same time are committed to ID.

 

[Copernicus]

But that's not the theory's problem. It's a problem for those who recognize its logic while at the same time are committed to ID.

Yes. Precisely my point. From their perspective, that is the "problem with the ToE". They feel a strong urge to discredit it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

According to biology scientists, what are three primary reasons I should gradually come to accept ToE?

I'm not a scientist, but I don't see how anyone can deny the geologic column (if that's the right term).

A long time ago, if we can trust our eyes, there were only simple organisms on earth. A bit later, there were only water-dwellers. Then amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc. As you rise up the column, you see that life diversifies and becomes more complex.

Then there's the whale's pelvis. Why would a whale have a tiny pelvis buried within its body if its ancestors never walked on land? Why would God give a pelvis to a swimming animal?