Why evolution is true

[wigginhall]

It's quite weird watching someone who doesn't understand evolution, criticize it.  I suppose it's a kind of reverse engineering, "I don't like evolution, so I'll make up some objections".

[Spud]

No to what? The rocks you referenced were laid down over very long periods under the sea, then were lifted up later such that the upper starata could then be eroded by wind, rain etc. The classic answer you refer to seems reasonable but I am sure is not the only explaination. I'm not a geologist - but then nor are you.

I gave the picture of the Dorset coast to show the irregular upper surface of the rocks, caused by erosion. When millions of years of strata are missing between two layers, one would expect the sort of erosion shown in the picture to have occurred, so that the join would be irregular instead of smooth.

You seem to have this picture of sudden evolutionary changes with clear, sudden, changes in environment, rather than gradual changes due to changes in the gene pool of a species as habitats and conditions varied gradually.

I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.
We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.

[Harrowby Hall]

It didn't evolve, then. Neither did the wooly mammoth, nor does the rhino.

Your request:


Show me one creature, living or fossilized, that isn't or wasn't well adapted to its environment.

Both Sebastian Coe and I answered your question as it was posed.

In each case the species concerned was well-adapted to its environment but failed because when there was a significant change to its environment its adaptation became inadequate. Evolution is characterised by large scale extinction due to environmental change.

[Shaker]

It's quite weird watching someone who doesn't understand evolution, criticize it.  I suppose it's a kind of reverse engineering, "I don't like evolution, so I'll make up some objections".

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than knowledge."

- a certain Mr. C. Darwin.

[Stranger]

I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.

And we have overwhelming evidence of much larger changes over evolutionary timescales. I'll ask again as you never answered: what do you think stops lots of little changes adding up to arbitrarily large ones?

Why do you think pretty much every scientist who actually studies these things thinks there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and most of those that don't have an obvious vested interest?

Why do you think this creationist agrees that the evidence is strong: The truth about evolution?

We never observe lizards learning how to fly...

Draco (genus)

[Maeght]

I gave the picture of the Dorset coast to show the irregular upper surface of the rocks, caused by erosion. When millions of years of strata are missing between two layers, one would expect the sort of erosion shown in the picture to have occurred, so that the join would be irregular instead of smooth.

Only if those strata were exposed to the same conditions as the eroded layers you are referring to. If they were under the sea, forming slowly, with other starta being formed at a latter date ontop, without the lower strata ever being exposed to wind, rain etc then they wouldn't show erosion. That's fairly obvious isn't it?

I appreciate that there are many ways the "environment" could change. What we observe in nature, though, is lots of variations of the same family depending on the environment. So we get polar bears and grizzly bears, each adapted to its environment but clearly related to the other. Finches with different sized beaks depending on the kind of seeds available to eat, tortoises with different shaped shells depending on the type of vegetation they eat.
We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.

Wow.

[jeremyp]

Until the ship you were watching comes back...

Clearly all ships are secretly submarines

[jeremyp]

We never observe lizards learning how to fly, or dogs learning to live in the sea.

The fossil record for dinosaurs evolving into birds is looking pretty good at the moment.

[Spud]

Clearly all ships are secretly submarines

I'll go up in a balloon then 

[jeremyp]

I'll go up in a balloon then 

I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.

[BeRational]

I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.

Like QM they 'know' when a measurement is being taken

[Spud]

I think you'll find that if you go up in a balloon, in order to keep the secret, the ships will not submerge until they are much further away.

If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?

[BeRational]

If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?

True, and we think that is because the Earth is a sphere.

But, I am sure I could come up with some zany explanation to get around it.

The flat Earth society know all this stuff, and still think the Earth is flat.

But you are doing the right thing, testing the model with some experiment. If the experiment agrees with the prediction of the model, then the model survives as not being wrong. But, it is never PROVED to be correct.

More information may come along at some point.

The theory of gravity is a case in point. it will pass all the tests that you can throw at it. But, it is now known to be not so much wrong, but not completely correct. The model it creates is brilliant, and allows us to put people into orbit, or land craft on other bodies in the solar system.
It can do all this by being a close approximation to the truth, but not completely correct.

[Spud]

True, and we think that is because the Earth is a sphere.

But, I am sure I could come up with some zany explanation to get around it.

The flat Earth society know all this stuff, and still think the Earth is flat.

But you are doing the right thing, testing the model with some experiment. If the experiment agrees with the prediction of the model, then the model survives as not being wrong. But, it is never PROVED to be correct.

More information may come along at some point.

The theory of gravity is a case in point. it will pass all the tests that you can throw at it. But, it is now known to be not so much wrong, but not completely correct. The model it creates is brilliant, and allows us to put people into orbit, or land craft on other bodies in the solar system.
It can do all this by being a close approximation to the truth, but not completely correct.

But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?

[Stranger]

But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains, and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves.

In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.

-- Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society are about as believable as Answers in Genesis.

[jeremyp]

If I go up into space, quite so straight the horizon will not look, Hm?

That’s the special glass they have to use in space ship windows, It distorted the Earthg to make the horizon look curved.

[BeRational]

But some people have gone even further in a space ship and seen that it's a rotating sphere. How is that not proof?

Perhaps they are not telling the truth?
Perhaps they were in a simulation?

Clue, you can always invent some absurd explanation. Science does NOT do proofs. Read a science book and quote one that says science does.
Proof is only in mathematics.

[SteveH]

Perhaps they are not telling the truth?
Perhaps they were in a simulation?

Clue, you can always invent some absurd explanation. Science does NOT do proofs. Read a science book and quote one that says science does.
Proof is only in mathematics.

As with some other words, there is confusion between the strict, technical sense and the popular, everyday sense. NS is right that nothing is ever absolutely proven in science, in the strict sense, but in the everyday sense, the sphericality of the earth, like the truth of evolution, is proven. It's to do with the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning: inductive tells us about the real world, but is never 100% certain; the fact that the sun has risen at a predictable time each day for the whole of my life strongly suggests that it will do sotomorrow, but it's not quite certain: some cosmic disaster could happen between now and then. On the other hand, deductive reasoning, which is to do with maths and logic, tells me that 2+2=4. That is absolutely certain, but tells me nothing about the real world, because numbers are abstract concepts, not things.
OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.

[Harrowby Hall]

OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.

Where is Sassy when you need her?

[Spud]

As with some other words, there is confusion between the strict, technical sense and the popular, everyday sense. NS is right that nothing is ever absolutely proven in science, in the strict sense, but in the everyday sense, the sphericality of the earth, like the truth of evolution, is proven. It's to do with the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning: inductive tells us about the real world, but is never 100% certain; the fact that the sun has risen at a predictable time each day for the whole of my life strongly suggests that it will do sotomorrow, but it's not quite certain: some cosmic disaster could happen between now and then. On the other hand, deductive reasoning, which is to do with maths and logic, tells me that 2+2=4. That is absolutely certain, but tells me nothing about the real world, because numbers are abstract concepts, not things.
OK, some smart-arse shoot me down in flames.

In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.

[SteveH]

In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.

There's no arguing with idiots. I give up.

[BeRational]

In your example of the sun rising tomorrow because it did every day of your life, it follows that your observation of the rotating earth from space today and tomorrow proves that today it is a sphere; however, that may not be the case next week when I observe it, as it may then be oblong. If I see a football and an orange together I have proof they are the same shape; if I see the earth from space I have proof it is the same shape as things like oranges and footballs.
If I haven't seen it then I don't have proof, I guess.

Please read a science book!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/

[Maeght]

Spud, nothing is ever proven in the scientific method. In some cases there may be an over whelming amount of evidence that supports a theory such that in common parlence it may be considered proven but science always keeps open the possibility that new evidence may invalidate the theory. That is fundamental to how science works. Just accept it or do some research, please.

[Alan Burns]

Most people will agree that evolution is seen to be a slow process involving millions of years to bring about substantial developments in species.

The evolution of the human body as we now know it spanned several millions of years from its ape like ancestors.

But consider the evolution of the human mind.

The evidence of the consciously driven creative abilities of humans dates from just a few thousand years ago, which on the evolutionary scale of time implies that the profound development of the modern human mind occurred in the blink of an eyelid.   There is no evidence of a gradual development, just a sudden, instantaneous transition.

[Spud]

Only if those strata were exposed to the same conditions as the eroded layers you are referring to. If they were under the sea, forming slowly, with other starta being formed at a latter date ontop, without the lower strata ever being exposed to wind, rain etc then they wouldn't show erosion. That's fairly obvious isn't it?

That is a zany explanation because you know that if the lower of the two strata had been under the sea for millions of years then more sediments would have collected on top of it during that time. I say zany explanation because it is comparable to jeremy's ships that are also secretly submarines. An equally zany explanation is to say that the missing strata were obviously eroded before new ones later formed.