What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[The Hammer]

Only that it hasn't changed our adult lived life expectancy that much. Kids sure.

 

[Left Coast]

Edited my previous post. Life expectancy has barely moved in 200 years.

I'm not saying modern medicine is wrong.

You're just saying modern medicine doesn't improve our lives? Or that it's just neutral like a preference for vanilla over chocolate, rather than a demonstrably positive help? Ayayay.

How was global life expectancy improved since the mid 1900s? | World Economic Forum

Does modern medicine increase life-expectancy: Quest for the Moon Rabbit? - PMC

The search for elixir of immortality has yielded mixed results. While some of the interventions like percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting have been a huge disappointment at least as far as prolongation of life is ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Other things are relevant to lifespan too of course, like clean water.

 

[Khabeni412]

A degree in biology and common sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was actually reading posts from members here many years ago that taught me what evolution is and does and all that, and more importantly dispelled and killed off all the remaining false ideas about it the Church planted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Edited my previous post. Life expectancy has barely moved in 200 years.

I'm not saying modern medicine is wrong.

It's not just infant mortality. For example, the anarchist philosopher Max Stirner (he has a quote about the herd trampling the individual that frequently gets misattributed to Nietzsche) died of an infected big bite in the mid 19th century. That's unthinkable for us in the West today unless you go to wherr the tsetse fly is a major threat.

 

[Colt]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

I live in some of the oldest mountains in the world not far from Washington D.C. As a kid we went to caves and saw ancient stalactite formations, folded granite formations, fossils etc. We were educated. So old earth was obvious to me as well as ancient life forms. We went to the Smithsonian a lot and saw all sorts of dinosaur exhibits. As a teenager my father would often read excerpts from the Urantia Book revelation which covers evolution in great detail. It was as if I was hearing things that I already knew! Thats sort of how I came to realize it.

 

[shunyadragon]

A degree in biology and common sense.

Simple literacy in high school science and English or any other language is sufficient.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

A mountain of observable evidence a person could hang-glide off of, for starters.

 

[Agent Smith]

I'm only aware of a few issues in re the controversy.

First, the alleged absence of missing links, which has been quite thoroughly dealt with - many archaeopteryx fossils and extant species have settled the matter.

Second, irreducible complexity - that at some point in the reduction-to-simpler-forms game, we hit a wall i.e. the ding of interest couldn't have been simpler. I haven't encountered a good refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm only aware of a few issues in re the controversy.

First, the alleged absence of missing links, which has been quite thoroughly dealt with - many archaeopteryx fossils and extant species have settled the matter.

Second, irreducible complexity - that at some point in the reduction-to-simpler-forms game, we hit a wall i.e. the ding of interest couldn't have been simpler. I haven't encountered a good refutation.

The fact is that irreducible complexity has never been shown to be a thing. In fact I do believe that all of the problems that Behe mentioned when he came up with his concept have been solved. His error was to pick recent discoveries that were on the cutting edge of science where we did not have very many answers yet. He assumed that there could be no answers. But by the time his book was published most of the problems in it had been solved and I do not think that any of his original problems are left.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm only aware of a few issues in re the controversy.

First, the alleged absence of missing links, which has been quite thoroughly dealt with - many archaeopteryx fossils and extant species have settled the matter.

Second, irreducible complexity - that at some point in the reduction-to-simpler-forms game, we hit a wall i.e. the ding of interest couldn't have been simpler. I haven encountered a good refutation.

The above lacks clarity of English and scientific knowledge on the complexity in life. ALL the examples of the claims of irreducible complexity proposed by the Creationists have been responded to in detail explaining the step by step relationship for example the eye begsn with a simple light sensitive cell with the same basic genetics in each incremental steps of increasing complex eye. Even where eyes evolved independently. Life is naturally complex. Increasing gradual complexity is one way how life evolves to respond to changing environments.

Intelligent design fails to make a falsifiable hypothesis, because they cannot falsify the negative as to e=what cannot be done by natural processes, also they have to come up with evidence for the Designer if they are going to base their argument on science.

 

[Agent Smith]

The fact is that irreducible complexity has never been shown to be a thing. In fact I do believe that all of the problems that Behe mentioned when he came up with his concept have been solved. His error was to pick recent discoveries that were on the cutting edge of science where we did not have very many answers yet. He assumed that there could be no answers. But by the time his book was published most of the problems in it had been solved and I do not think that any of his original problems are left.

Most interesting. I recall that the argument from irreducible complexity was based on bacteria(l flagella). Ironic that, but also very apropos. I once asked the question, why are no new unicellular organisms developing, as opposed to evolving? Are the conditions for biogenesis different from the conditions of biosustenance? Que sais-je?

 

[Bthoth]

The above lacks clarity of English and scientific knowledge on the complexity in life. ALL the examples of the claims of irreducible complexity proposed by the Creationists have been responded to in detail explaining the step by step relationship for example the eye begsn with a simple light sensitive cell with the same basic genetics in each incremental steps of increasing complex eye. Even where eyes evolved independently. Life is naturally complex. Increasing gradual complexity is one way how life evolves to respond to changing environments.

Intelligent design fails to make a falsifiable hypothesis, because they cannot falsify the negative as to e=what cannot be done by natural processes, also they have to come up with evidence for the Designer if they are going to base their argument on science.

Living systems and the evolution of organism, is proof positive of natural processes. the nature of god, apparently supersedes the ignorance of both disciplines.

that is why the unveiling combines the discipline.

Who is willing to keep the rules of personal responsibility until then?

 

[Agent Smith]

The above lacks clarity of English and scientific knowledge on the complexity in life. ALL the examples of the claims of irreducible complexity proposed by the Creationists have been responded to in detail explaining the step by step relationship for example the eye begsn with a simple light sensitive cell with the same basic genetics in each incremental steps of increasing complex eye. Even where eyes evolved independently. Life is naturally complex. Increasing gradual complexity is one way how life evolves to respond to changing environments.

Intelligent design fails to make a falsifiable hypothesis, because they cannot falsify the negative as to e=what cannot be done by natural processes, also they have to come up with evidence for the Designer if they are going to base their argument on science.

I'm sorry to hear that my English is not up to the mark. Anyway, your synopsis of eye-evolution is accurate. Richard Dawkins goes out of his way to explain that evolution is not random. There's something called selection pressure which, how should I say this?, vectorizes the process (gives it direction).

In reluctant defense of ID, I'd say there's teleonomy, the concession awarded by hardcore atheists/scientists, which is (apparent) design.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

Basic science and logic.

 

[Bthoth]

I'm sorry to hear that my English is not up to the mark. Anyway, your synopsis of eye-evolution is accurate. Richard Dawkins goes out of his way to explain that evolution is not random. There's something called selection pressure which, how should I say this?, vectorizes the process (gives it direction).

That vector is that living systems 'intend to continue' but using that language will get you introuble.

In reluctant defense of ID, I'd say there's teleonomy, the concession awarded by hardcore atheists/scientists, which is (apparent) design.

if there was a design, then there would be blueprints/ explanation.

 

[Agent Smith]

That vector is that living systems 'intend to continue' but using that language will get you introuble.


if there was a design, then there would be blueprints/ explanation.

Gracias for the warning. How exactly though?

Regarding irreducible complexity, Richard Dawkins, foremost among evolutionary biologists to champion the atheist movement, states that evolution is like a drunkard's walk (random) with a wall on one side (this wall being what I call the simplicity barrier). Even though the drunkard totters in both directions, he eventually ends up being far away from the wall i.e. life becomes more complex, instead of less. Isn't this a defense of irreducible complexity?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

Good question. Why do I believe living things can adapt & evolve over time?

Because we observe gradual changes within organisms.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is an example.

Darwin’s finches are another.

Evolutionary change has probably influenced the vast majority of species on Earth. But naturalistic methods don’t have thought capacity.

The origin of these (taxonomic) families of organisms, their first parents, each with their cells and its unique DNA & molecular michinery within those cells, came from a Mind.

We never find integrated complex systems, originating ex nihilo, that build function & maintain balance. Certainly not from thoughtless processes.

That isn’t logical.

I’ve been accused at times of making “arguments from incredulity.”

Well, life’s diversity & the arrangement of finely tuned forces supporting it, is incredible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most interesting. I recall that the argument from irreducible complexity was based on bacteria(l flagella). Ironic that, but also very apropos. I once asked the question, why are no new unicellular organisms developing, as opposed to evolving? Are the conditions for biogenesis different from the conditions of biosustenance? Que sais-je?

And yes, how the bacterial flagellum is well understood and has been for well over ten years, perhaps twenty. There is an old YouTube video that I poste some times that explains how it evolved in a simplified way. I also link a paper that the video was based on. It is very long. And that paper is based on over 200 peer reviewed articles which are listed in the foot notes. Most of them are linked.

It appears that you are asking why abiogenesis is not occurring today. You need to remember that it was, like evolution a rather long process. And one big factor is that there was for all practical purposes no molecular oxygen at that time. Life evolved as oxygen appeared so that it did not destroy it. That is one big handicap. And even if it did get a start, and life very well may have had the first steps going. For a long long period of time before it is even life it is "food".

The first step in abiogenesis was probably the formation of a cell wall. Vesicles of lipids, even today, form round shapes with a natural wall. That is one step that is well understood and observed. If there are chemicals in the water they will often penetrate that wall and be trapped inside. And these vesicles do tend to grow naturally until they are so large they break up into two or more smaller vesicles. But as I said as cell wall with nutrients on the inside they would be targets to life. They have no defenses since they are still in the inanimate stage. In other word not only food. Free food.

 

[Agent Smith]

And yes, how the bacterial flagellum is well understood and has been for well over ten years, perhaps twenty. There is an old YouTube video that I poste some times that explains how it evolved in a simplified way. I also link a paper that the video was based on. It is very long. And that paper is based on over 200 peer reviewed articles which are listed in the foot notes. Most of them are linked.

It appears that you are asking why abiogenesis is not occurring today. You need to remember that it was, like evolution a rather long process. And one big factor is that there was for all practical purposes no molecular oxygen at that time. Life evolved as oxygen appeared so that it did not destroy it. That is one big handicap. And even if it did get a start, and life very well may have had the first steps going. For a long long period of time before it is even life it is "food".

The first step in abiogenesis was probably the formation of a cell wall. Vesicles of lipids, even today, form round shapes with a natural wall. That is one step that is well understood and observed. If there are chemicals in the water they will often penetrate that wall and be trapped inside. And these vesicles do tend to grow naturally until they are so large they break up into two or more smaller vesicles. But as I said as cell wall with nutrients on the inside they would be targets to life. They have no defenses since they are still in the inanimate stage. In other word not only food. Free food.

Interesting theory, maketh sense!

That said, some remain unconvinced as to how bacterial flagella evolved from 0. I wouldn't have chosen that particular tune to play, if you catch my drift. There are stuff that science is more uncertain of than microscopic whips.