Why evolution is true

[Spud]

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?

Draco (genus)

Your lizard is gliding. Is it learning how to fly?

I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.

The default position should be that large scale changes do not occur. The majority of fossils demonstrate sudden appearance/no apparent ancestry followed by stasis (no change in basic form). Even a hundred thousand years is long enough for large scale changes, but modern man hasn't changed much.

When you see two fossils that look completely different but share a similar plan, eg they both have a backbone, then saying they are related is zany, where "zany" = like jeremy's ship-subs.

[Maeght]

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.

Lets take this a step at a time as I think one of us is confused .....

What I am saying is that rocks such as those in the picture you showed are formed at the bottom of the sea. As conditions change the type of creatures living in the sea change so over long periods the type of rock can change and different strata form. The weight of subsequent layers on the earlier layers creating the rock starta we see. As rivers flow into the sea different materials are deposited on the sea bed. The lower strata would not show erosion by wind/rain etc since they have been formed slowly under the sea and never been exposed to wind/rain. At a later time earth movements threw the rocks up out of the sea. The upper layers then begin to erode due to rain/wind etc. The lower layers will not show such erosing. What is 'zany' about that?

[Maeght]

Your lizard is gliding. Is it learning how to fly?

I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.

Scientists accepting the theory of evolution due to the overwhelming body of evidence for it is not an argument relying on people believing in something. The vast majority of people who are qualified in and work in the field of evolutionary biology and other fields which have a relevance to ToE accept the theory because of the evidence and their work, not due to a belief.

[Stranger]

I'm not really interested in arguments that rely on most people believing something.

It's not about most people. When we are talking about almost all of those people who are experts in a field believing one thing, almost all of the those who disagree having an obvious vested interest, and when you are clearly rather ill-informed, it really should be giving you pause for thought.

As far as geology goes, here's some more reading for you: The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist

"Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from [Institute for Creation Research's] school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either. "

[Spud]

Lets take this a step at a time as I think one of us is confused .....

What I am saying is that rocks such as those in the picture you showed are formed at the bottom of the sea. As conditions change the type of creatures living in the sea change so over long periods the type of rock can change and different strata form. The weight of subsequent layers on the earlier layers creating the rock starta we see. As rivers flow into the sea different materials are deposited on the sea bed. The lower strata would not show erosion by wind/rain etc since they have been formed slowly under the sea and never been exposed to wind/rain. At a later time earth movements threw the rocks up out of the sea. The upper layers then begin to erode due to rain/wind etc. The lower layers will not show such erosing. What is 'zany' about that?

What you've missed is that in some rock formations there is 10 million years of strata missing between two formations, yet the contact point between them is smooth and regular. Assume the lower one was formed first. If it was at the bottom of the sea for 10 million years, new layers would have been deposited on top of it. If the sea receded for 10 million years leaving it exposed, there would be signs of erosion. I gave an example in the first post I wrote on this thread. The way this is explained is that sediments were deposited on top of the lower of the two layers, but they must have subsequently been eroded just before the upper of the two layers was deposited, so that the contact point is smooth.

[Maeght]

What you've missed is that in some rock formations there is 10 million years of strata missing between two formations, yet the contact point between them is smooth and regular. Assume the lower one was formed first. If it was at the bottom of the sea for 10 million years, new layers would have been deposited on top of it. If the sea receded for 10 million years leaving it exposed, there would be signs of erosion. I gave an example in the first post I wrote on this thread. The way this is explained is that sediments were deposited on top of the lower of the two layers, but they must have subsequently been eroded just before the upper of the two layers was deposited, so that the contact point is smooth.

Right, so you are talking about unconformities, which is not what was in the last picture you showed.

In your first post on this thread you mention the Black Canyon Unconformity and from what I have read there is evidence of erosion in the lower layers. The type of erosion seen in unconformities depends exactly on the history - for example if the lower layers reside in a shallow sea for a period they will be eroded in a different way than if they have been exposed to wind/rain etc.

As with evolutionary theory, the vast mnajority of peole who are trained and work in this field see no issues with this. Why do you think that is exactly?

[Enki]

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

Not all, Alan. Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?

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

No problem with that, on present evidence.

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.

A few thousand years? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you just consider cave paintings, then even the famous ones at  Lascaux are at least  c17000 years old, and they are nowhere near the oldest. In fact the oldest known red hand stencil painting has been dated to c67000 years old and was most probably made by neanderthals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

And if you consider the evolution of artistic creativity, there are a range of discoveries which seem to point to this(e.g. beads. shells. creation of colour pigments, pattern art) which go back many tens of thousands of years. Even the 'Venus' figurine(a fairly common type of art object) can be dated back up to 27000 years ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815939/

[Alan Burns]

Not all, Alan. Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?

I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.

No problem with that, on present evidence.

A few thousand years? Don't be ridiculous. Even if you just consider cave paintings, then even the famous ones at  Lascaux are at least  c17000 years old, and they are nowhere near the oldest. In fact the oldest known red hand stencil painting has been dated to c67000 years old and was most probably made by neanderthals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

And if you consider the evolution of artistic creativity, there are a range of discoveries which seem to point to this(e.g. beads. shells. creation of colour pigments, pattern art) which go back many tens of thousands of years. Even the 'Venus' figurine(a fairly common type of art object) can be dated back up to 27000 years ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815939/

Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale.  What I am saying is that the profound advance in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that you are being a little opaque here, Alan.

What do you mean by "mind"? How would you differentiate "mind" from "brain"?

[torridon]

Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale.  What I am saying is that the profound advances in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.

Cultural evolution and biological evolution could be said to run at vastly different speeds. Brains are plastic; minds can be changed in an instant.  Changes in nucleotide sequences on the other hand take many generations to spread through populations.

[Alan Burns]

I think that you are being a little opaque here, Alan.

What do you mean by "mind"? How would you differentiate "mind" from "brain"?

Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).

[Gordon]

Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).

That is because you're trying to find a role for 'god': and the TofE doesn't require the addition of 'god' at all.

[Sebastian Toe]

I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.

SJ Gould;
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

[torridon]

Brain is the physical machine.
I consider the mind to be the combined entity of machine (brain) and driver (soul).

You could consider it, but you'd be wrong.  The world would be so much better if only people would stop being wrong so much. 

[Enki]

I understand it is a theory used to try to explain the lack of transitional fossils.

Yes, and it has many adherents as well as detractors. Probably the best rendition of it is by Stephen Jay Gould in 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'. Certainly, I would suggest, there is a case to be made for it alongside the case for stasis and graduated evolution.

Tens of thousands of years is still an extremely short period in the evolutionary time scale.  What I am saying is that the profound advance in the capabilities of the human mind was evidently not a gradual process in the evolution time line.

However, now you have at least accepted that we have evidence for creative abilites in certain hominids(not just homo sapiens) going back tens of thousands of years, then it is quite reasonable to surmise that such creative abilities did not necessarily start with the dating of first discoveries, but the driving force of that creativity might well have been illustrated in forms that have not survived(e.g. dance, sound, body painting). There is evidence, for instance, in South Africa of the selection of the deliberate production of ochre pigments which might, I stress, might have been used for body decoration. This was some 164000 years ago.

Another evolutionary trend in hominids, and, although you may not accept this as evidence of increasing 'consciously driven artistic abilities'( I assume you think they are a gift from God), does seem to have correlation to greater thinking power, greater social interaction(and, therefore, greater awareness) and possibly the sophistication of language. This evolutionary trait is the increase in brain size in hominids over millions of years. The cranial capacity of early hominids, such as aferensis annd africanus, was in the range of 500 cm3, and this gradually increased(habilis c700cm3),  erectus(c900cm3) to homo sapiens( c1500 cm3). Compared with other mammals, the neocortex of primates has changed a great deal. In most mammals it accounts for 30-40% of the brain. in primates it is larger still and  in humans it accounts for c80% of the brain mass. The neocortex is basically the thinking part of our brain and seems to have an important part in the development of language and social relationships.(see Robin Dunbar) Hence I would suggest that you are limiting your suggestions simply to homo sapiens. If you looked at the bigger picture then you just might just see the evolutionary trend towards the greater capabilities of the mind was a process which took millions of years.

[Spud]

Right, so you are talking about unconformities, which is not what was in the last picture you showed.

Sorry - I showed that as an example of erosion of the present land surface, as your question was slightly ambiguous ("what rocks am I talking about"?)

In your first post on this thread you mention the Black Canyon Unconformity and from what I have read there is evidence of erosion in the lower layers. The type of erosion seen in unconformities depends exactly on the history - for example if the lower layers reside in a shallow sea for a period they will be eroded in a different way than if they have been exposed to wind/rain etc.

I probably should have just posted this link; I didn't because I know you don't trust creationist websites. It does show several examples though for reference. The Black Canyon is a bit harder to understand because the gap in time is over a billion years.
https://creation.com/flat-gaps

As with evolutionary theory, the vast mnajority of peole who are trained and work in this field see no issues with this. Why do you think that is exactly?

Not sure.

[Gordon]

https://creation.com/flat-gaps

Ignoring creationist sites like this one (why you bother with them beats me) - what is the view of professional geologists?

[jeremyp]

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.

I looked at a 10p piece today. It was the same shape as an orange and the Earth from space. Does that make a 10p piece spherical? No.

There is no proof that the Earth is more or less spherical, but the evidence is incredibly strong and you seem to have no trouble inferring from the evidence that the Earth is round. Well, the evidence for evolution is also incredibly strong. We have the evidence from the fossil record, the evidence from genetics and the evidence from geographical distribution and there is other evidence too. So why is it you have no trouble following the evidence where the shape of the planet is concerned but you can’t do the same for evolution?

[Stranger]

https://creation.com/flat-gaps

You know I looked at this did some searching and found (ignoring the vested interest creationist sites) quite a lot of information, why couldn't you be bothered?

I also looked at some of the rest of this site and found the usual dishonest misrepresentation and contrived and ridiculous nonsense (pdf) in order to try to distort the evidence in order to fit the preconceived idea of what their blind faith in a primitive superstition was telling them. Every bit as ridiculous as the Flat Earth Society.

[Maeght]

Sorry - I showed that as an example of erosion of the present land surface, as your question was slightly ambiguous ("what rocks am I talking about"?)
I probably should have just posted this link; I didn't because I know you don't trust creationist websites. It does show several examples though for reference. The Black Canyon is a bit harder to understand because the gap in time is over a billion years.
https://creation.com/flat-gaps
Not sure.

Ah right, so paraconformities. These are not a problem to the vast majority of geologists. I don't trust creationist websites, no, and you just need to read the 'What we believe' section under 'About' to see why. This comes back to my question of why are the supposed issues raised by creationist websites not considered a problem to the vast majority of those who work in the relevant fields. Or to put it another way, why are these things only seen as problematic by those with creationist religious beliefs?

[Maeght]

Have been reading about planation surfaces, very interesting. Worth a look.

[SusanDoris]

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.

Well then, let us all have the scientific, objective, clear EVIDENCE to support this wild claim.

[ippy]

You only need to look into the evolution of the Peppered moth Alan, all science, no Mr Magic Pie in the Sky man needed or necessary I've added a link for you.

It'll be interesting to see how your written gymnastics department struggles to insert the god idea of yours into the frame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[Spud]

You only need to look into the evolution of the Peppered moth Alan, all science, no Mr Magic Pie in the Sky man needed or necessary I've added a link for you.

It'll be interesting to see how your written gymnastics department struggles to insert the god idea of yours into the frame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Commiserations Alan, ippy

A question about camouflage: how does a camouflaged creature know where it should hide to avoid being detected?

[Shaker]

It doesn't.

You don't have a clue about any of this, do you?