Why evolution is true

[Spud]

Then you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence.

What evidence? The trunk that supports all the branches of the whale family tree? The trunk you assume exists (#156)?

You just said that adaptation did happen (#171) - make up your mind.

Apologies. I was thinking of adaptations that when added to each other would change fundamental characteristics.

[Stranger]

What evidence?

Is this even a serious question? There's plenty online and many good books. If I thought you were serious I'd link some but if you've been posting on this long, I'm sure it's all been said before.

However the big clue that the evidence is overwhelming is that almost all of the people who study it will tell you that it is and the tiny minority who disagree consist in the most part of people with a religious vested interest in it being wrong. Compare to when the only people saying smoking wasn't bad for you were people who worked for the tobacco companies.

Here's an honest creationist saying that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution.

Apologies. I was thinking of adaptations that when added to each other would change fundamental characteristics.

What do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?

[Spud]

Is this even a serious question? There's plenty online and many good books. If I thought you were serious I'd link some but if you've been posting on this long, I'm sure it's all been said before.

However the big clue that the evidence is overwhelming is that almost all of the people who study it will tell you that it is and the tiny minority who disagree consist in the most part of people with a religious vested interest in it being wrong. Compare to when the only people saying smoking wasn't bad for you were people who worked for the tobacco companies.

Here's an honest creationist saying that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution: The truth about evolution.

What do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?

Hi Mr Stranger,

Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.

There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".

I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?

[SteveH]

Hi Mr Stranger,

Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.

There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".

I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?

By "doing a bit of research" I take it you mean "reading bollocks on 'Answers in Genesis'".

[Stranger]

Okay, having done a bit of research I get the feeling that we need to define what we mean by "large evolutionary change", which you say there is overwhelming evidence for.

There are two possible definitions:
- change within recognizable families of organisms, such as the evolution of ancient wolves into the breeds of dog we have today.
- the kind of change that would involve, for example, a common carnivorous ancestor giving rise to Canidae (wolves and foxes), Ursidae (bears), Otariidae (sea lions) and other so-called "Caniformia".

I was talking about the latter definition, which at the moment I do not see evidence for; whereas I suspect you were thinking more of the former, for which of course there is lots of evidence. Would you agree?

I see you didn't answer my question, comment on the creationist telling you that there is lots of evidence for evolution, or on the fact that almost all the poeple who question evolution have a vested interest.

There really isn't a qualitative difference between your 'two definition', which is why I asked you what you think prevents lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.

There is overwhelming evidence for common decent - that is all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor. The evidence really is beyond rational doubt, which is why those who question it tend to be ignorant of the subject, have a strong religious reason to reject it, or both.

[Spud]

By "doing a bit of research" I take it you mean "reading bollocks on 'Answers in Genesis'".

No, Wikipedia.

[Spud]

I see you didn't answer my question, comment on the creationist telling you that there is lots of evidence for evolution, or on the fact that almost all the poeple who question evolution have a vested interest.

There really isn't a qualitative difference between your 'two definition', which is why I asked you what you think prevents lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones.

There is overwhelming evidence for common decent - that is all life on Earth evolving from a common ancestor. The evidence really is beyond rational doubt, which is why those who question it tend to be ignorant of the subject, have a strong religious reason to reject it, or both.

None of the evidence presented there is proof. Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion. And by other elephants in the room.

[Maeght]

None of the evidence presented there is proof.

Science doesn't do proof.

Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion.

And why should your opinion be significant when the vast majority of those qualified in the relevant fields and who work in those fields don't share your opinion?

And by other elephants in the room.

Such as?

[Stranger]

None of the evidence presented there is proof.

This demonstrates an ignorance of science.

Moreover, it is all falsified by living fossils - in my opinion.

This demonstrates an ignorance of the theory of evolution.

[Spud]

Science doesn't do proof.

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.

And why should your opinion be significant when the vast majority of those qualified in the relevant fields and who work in those fields don't share your opinion?

If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant.

Such as?

How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.

[BeRational]

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant. How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.

Science does not do proof.

That is mathematics.

[Spud]

This demonstrates an ignorance of the theory of evolution.

Why did dragonflies remain basically unchanged, except for size, during both the Permian and Cretacious extinctions, which would have put great environmental pressure on them?
This and many other examples demonstrate that the concept of evolution of species from simple to complex is simply wrong. When under environmental pressure, creatures either survived and stayed basically the same, or went extinct.

[Spud]

Science does not do proof.

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then?

[Shaker]

You seem to be unacquainted with the concept of 'proof' in the formal sense.

I'm not amazed.

[BeRational]

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then?

Yes, that could be the case.

But science has a good model of how the Earth orbits the Sun, and so far all the evidence fits this model.

If you have some evidence that does not fit this model, then the scientific model will be scrapped.

Science, creates models from evidence (or guesses), and the model makes predictions.
If the predictions do not match reality, then the model is wrong.
If reality seems to follow the model THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE MODEL IF PROVED CORRECT. It just means that it has not been proved wrong yet.

Do you have any evidence that the Sun orbits the Earth, or does your evidence fit the existing model?

[Spud]

You seem to be unacquainted with the concept of 'proof' in the formal sense.

I'm not amazed.

I can prove the earth is not flat just by watching the way a ship disappears over the horizon. How is that not proof?

[Spud]

If you have some evidence that does not fit this model, then the scientific model will be scrapped.

As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?

[Stranger]

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.

No it doesn't. Of course some of its conclusions such as the one you mention and evolution from a common ancestor have such overwhelming evidence that they are pretty much beyond doubt but it's not the case that sceince can provide absolute proof.

If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant.

Apart from the dishonest idiocy of sites like Answers in Genesis, what on earth would lead you to believe that you would know something that could bring into question one of the best established theories in science that all the world's experts (except a tiny, tiny minority who mostly have an obvious vested interest) have overlooked?

Get real.

How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.

Obviously not - see above.

Sorry but I really can't be bothered to look this up. I've wasted an awful lot of my life chasing down silly nonsense from dishonest creationists (okay, they aren't all dishonest, some have been taken in by the ignorant or dishonest) and they are always obviously wrong when you get to the bottom of the matter. I've never seen a creationist website that isn't full of misrepresentation, distortion, and blatant falsehoods. I'm frankly sick of feeling the need for a shower after visiting them, they are so full of shit.

[BeRational]

As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?

How do you know it does not fit the model?

What relevant qualifications do you have to make that assessment.

Send the evidence to a biology department at a local university, and they might be helpful and show you where you are wrong.

Or, you will get a nobel prize.

Please remember, many scientists would LOVE to prove evolution wrong.

[Maeght]

So the earth may not be spherical, tilted and orbiting the sun then? Of course it does proof.If I knew something they didn't know or couldn't explain, then my opinion would be significant. How about the lack of erosion between geological strata that were supposedly deposited millions of years apart? This demonstrates that the current dating system for the rocks is in error.

Science works by making observations, making measurements, deriving hypotheses and theories to  explain those observations ans doing experiments to test the theory. If observations are made which invalidate the theory then the theory is scrapped or modified. Such observations could be potentially made at any time so theories are never proven. You are talking about observations and facts not proofs.

If you knew something which others didn't etc then that would not be an opinion would it.

What erosion evidence would you expect?

[Maeght]

As there is evidence that does not fit the evolution model (see above), shouldn't that model be scrapped?

There isn't any.

[Spud]

How do you know it does not fit the model?

Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred by evolutionists from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)

[Maeght]

Common sense tells me it is unlikely that some species changed their form and their habitat (sea to land, land to sea, land to air - inferred from similarities in body structure) while others have appeared suddenly in the fossil record and stayed basically the same over hundreds of millions of years (demonstrated through comparisons of fossils with living species)

Ah, good old common sense. The answer to the question should have been that you don't know.

[Spud]

Ah, good old common sense. The answer to the question should have been that you don't know.

If the evolution model predicts that some species would change form and habitat while others would stay the same, then I accept I am wrong. So does it?

[Spud]

What erosion evidence would you expect?

The kind of erosion we see at the surface.