Why evolution is true

[SteveH]

Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.
The fact that the eye is wired up wrong way round, the nerves running across the surface of the retina before plunging through a hole - the blind spot.
The fact that the nerves of the central nervous system below the brain are encased in the vertebrae of the spine, meaning that a fracture or dislocation of the spine leads to paralysis, usually permanent. If those nerves were disributed trough the soft tissue of our torsos, a broken back would be no more serious than a broken leg.
No-one has yet come up with an example of irreducible complexity, despite the best efforts of creationists: Michael Behe's nomination of the rotary flegellum on certain bacteria has been pretty comprehensively debunked by evolutionary scientists, and the mammalian eye, an early candidate, was long ago shown to have evolved - and each major step in the evolution still exists on various creatures.

Positive arguments for evolution:
Junk DNA, left over from our distant ancestors.
radiometric and other forms of dating, giving a very great age for the earth.
Vestigial and atavistic features such as human tails and whale rear legs, and appendices.
Transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica and Tiktaalik roseae, and many others.
Evolution visible in the fossil record, especially whales and horses, where certain characteristic features are carried through, indicating the succession. Another excellent example is the evolution of the reptilian multi-boned jaw into the mammalian inner ear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles
Evolution satisfies the criteria of a good scientific theory: it has been confirmed by later discoveries (genetics), and it makes accurate predictions (e.g. that a creature like what became known as Tiktaalik roseae would be found, and even in what part of the world).

[SteveH]

A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?

[BeRational]

A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?

I agree with your post, but would just change the true, to most likely true.

We are always open to new evidence, and follow where it leads.

I think we are as certain that evolution by natural selection is probably true, in the same way that we think the e licence suggests that the Earth orbits the Sun.

[Walter]

A plea - could we keep this as a serious debate, and curb the usual sarcasm?

er? no !

[Spud]

Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?

Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.

Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).

We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.

Stasis in the fossil record is observed.

The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115

We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ

If evolution is true then I'm a potato.

[Gordon]

Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?

Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.

Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).

We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.

Stasis in the fossil record is observed.

The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115

We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ

If evolution is true then I'm a potato.

Then you are well named, Spud.

[SteveH]

Trilobites had various kinds of multi-lensed eye, like insects. Eyes seem to have evolved during the Cambrian explosion, which is well before their time, so I fail to see how that is evidence against evolution.
Are you a young-earth creationist, or an old-earth one? Do you believe in the historicity of the Adam and Eve and flood stories?

[Walter]

Trilobites had various kinds of multi-lensed eye, like insects. Eyes seem to have evolved during the Cambrian explosion, which is well before their time, so I fail to see how that is evidence against evolution.
Are you a young-earth creationist, or an old-earth one? Do you believe in the historicity of the Adam and Eve and flood stories?

[Walter]

oops ! something went wrong there .


Ill take a guess and say he does .

[Sriram]

Negative arguments against intelligentdesign:
Bad design, such as the circuitous path followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, perfectly explainable if evolution is assumed: it can be traced to the innervation of gills in fish, so goes back a long way to our piscine ancestors.
The fact that the eye is wired up wrong way round, the nerves running across the surface of the retina before plunging through a hole - the blind spot.
The fact that the nerves of the central nervous system below the brain are encased in the vertebrae of the spine, meaning that a fracture or dislocation of the spine leads to paralysis, usually permanent. If those nerves were disributed trough the soft tissue of our torsos, a broken back would be no more serious than a broken leg.
No-one has yet come up with an example of irreducible complexity, despite the best efforts of creationists: Michael Behe's nomination of the rotary flegellum on certain bacteria has been pretty comprehensively debunked by evolutionary scientists, and the mammalian eye, an early candidate, was long ago shown to have evolved - and each major step in the evolution still exists on various creatures.

Positive arguments for evolution:
Junk DNA, left over from our distant ancestors.
radiometric and other forms of dating, giving a very great age for the earth.
Vestigial and atavistic features such as human tails and whale rear legs, and appendices.
Transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica and Tiktaalik roseae, and many others.
Evolution visible in the fossil record, especially whales and horses, where certain characteristic features are carried through, indicating the succession. Another excellent example is the evolution of the reptilian multi-boned jaw into the mammalian inner ear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles
Evolution satisfies the criteria of a good scientific theory: it has been confirmed by later discoveries (genetics), and it makes accurate predictions (e.g. that a creature like what became known as Tiktaalik roseae would be found, and even in what part of the world).

Why do you think Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive?     

All man made products like cars, planes, computers etc. etc. evolve  over time and they are also products of Intelligent Design.

[torridon]

Do you mean, "Why I think evolution is true"?

Facts such as the earth being a sphere and orbiting the sun can be observed.

Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).

We are often told that two different families arose from an extinct common ancestor. Frequently though, the "story of evolution" has to be re-written because fossils keep being found that are as low down in the geological column than their supposed ancestors. So again, evolution is not observed.

Stasis in the fossil record is observed.

The formation of the geological column itself was not observed - not over millions of years, at least. If you believe in these long ages you also have to explain gaps of up to a billion years between consecutive layers that look they were laid down a few days apart, such as this one in Black Canyon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwolf/5137667115

We have however observed evidence for extremely rapid deposition of sediments, such as at Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens. Also in experimental work done in flume tanks as shown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnzHU9VsliQ

If evolution is true then I'm a potato.

That's absurd.  Europeans have got white skin. Is that because some capricious god just thought it looked better and intervened ?  Or was it because of natural processes ?  If you deny evolution, then you deny Nature.

[torridon]

Why do you think Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive?     

All man made products like cars, planes, computers etc. etc. evolve  over time and they are also products of Intelligent Design.

But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?

[Spud]

But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?

This intelligence may be at the expense of some other capability, such as running speed.

That's absurd.  Europeans have got white skin. Is that because some capricious god just thought it looked better and intervened ?  Or was it because of natural processes ?  If you deny evolution, then you deny Nature.

I'm not denying adaptation but evolution from simple to complex.
White men can't jump.

[jeremyp]

Evolution from simple to complex has not been observed. We do observe life forms at the bottom of the geological column that were no less complex than today's (the eye of a Trilobite being a good example).

Trilobites are a long way from the bottom of the geological column. The lived from around 600 mya until around 300 mya. Furthermore, their evolution from simpler forms to more complex forms over those 300 million years is well documented. Not that evolution always has to be from simple to complex. For example, snakes have fairly obviously evolved to lose their legs.

I recommend you read Trilobite! by Richard Fortey.

[Sriram]

But the intelligence of car designers and computer programmers is something that evolved. Did Homo Erectus put satellites into orbit ?

You are missing the point torridon...

Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors. 

I am only pointing out that this need not be so.  We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.

So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.

[Enki]

You are missing the point torridon...

Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors. 

I am only pointing out that this need not be so.  We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.

So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.

You seem to be confusing life creation with evolution.

The point about Darwinian evolution is that it involves natural processes without need or recourse to any external intervention.

Man made products have been modified(not 'have evolved') by necessary external intervention.

If you are talking about life creation however, then the subject is abiogenesis, not evolution.

We do not yet know how life began'

We do know how man made products were created.

[Maeght]

You are missing the point torridon...

Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors. 

I am only pointing out that this need not be so.  We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.

So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.

If Evolution is intelligently lead, why do species become extinct?

Evolution by Natural Selection explains what we observe regarding changes in life forms on this planet, ID doesn't.

[torridon]

This intelligence may be at the expense of some other capability, such as running speed.  I'm not denying adaptation but evolution from simple to complex.
White men can't jump.

Eh ?  Most people would consider homo sapiens more complex than Australopithecus afarensis.  Most people would consider multicellular organisms more complex than single cell ones. Most people would consider vertebrates with internal organs more complex than the simple multicellular organisms that came before.  Most people would consider eukaryotes more complex than the archaea that preceded them.  How is this not a progression from simple to complex over time ?

[Sriram]

If Evolution is intelligently lead, why do species become extinct?

Evolution by Natural Selection explains what we observe regarding changes in life forms on this planet, ID doesn't.

Even in man made products there are redundancies and many models get rejected and dumped. Happens all the time.  Does not mean there is no intelligent design.

'Chance' can 'explain' away anything! 

[torridon]

You are missing the point torridon...

Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation. Evolution on the other hand is associated with chance factors. 

I am only pointing out that this need not be so.  We have innumerable examples of man made products that have evolved over the decades and centuries...and which still have design flaws... but which are nevertheless based on intelligent design.

So...evolution and design flaws do not automatically rule out Intelligent Design. Evolution is a form of creation in stages.

It is flawed thinking to put intelligent design and evolution side by side as if there was some equivalence.  They are not equivalent.  What the evidence has taught us, is that intelligence is an outcome of evolution, and therefore cannot be considered a rival concept on a like for like basis.  Evolution is fundamental; intelligent design is not, it is derivative.

[Maeght]

Even in man made products there are redundancies and many models get rejected and dumped. Happens all the time.  Does not mean there is no intelligent design.

So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?

'Chance' can 'explain' away anything!

Natural Selection, not chance.

[ekim]

So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?

I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.'  As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between.  The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template.  The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia.  Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.

[Maeght]

I think that you will have to appreciate that Sriram is coming from a different background as indicated by his comment 'Perhaps because of the western background with the Abrahamic religions, Intelligent Design is generally associated with instantaneous and 'perfect' creation.'  As far as I can recall, a number of Hindu schools of thought see intelligence as a property fairly close to that word's original meaning (interlegere) .. to choose between.  The creative process is flexible rather than associated with a divine design template.  The creative process is seen more as an interplay of three 'forces' .... rajas, which might be seen as energy, tamas which might be seen as mass or a formative force, and sattwa (intelligence) an intervening force which attempts to create harmony by using rajas to stimulate tamas and tamas to stabilise rajas.  Rajas has a tendency towards dissipation and tamas towards inertia.  Sattwa preserves the harmony between the two.

Thanks. Shows how creativevthe human imagination can be.

[Sriram]

It is flawed thinking to put intelligent design and evolution side by side as if there was some equivalence.  They are not equivalent.  What the evidence has taught us, is that intelligence is an outcome of evolution, and therefore cannot be considered a rival concept on a like for like basis.  Evolution is fundamental; intelligent design is not, it is derivative.

What do you mean 'no equivalence'. Who claimed any equivalence?

I am just saying that there are enough examples of evolution happening through intelligent intervention. So, in principle they are not mutually exclusive.  Evolution can be driven by intelligence. That is all.

[Sriram]

So the Intelligent Designer is no more intelligent than humans?

Natural Selection, not chance.

Maybe!

Environmental changes are chance and so NS is chance.