Why evolution is true

[Sassy]

Except it is; although, since it's based on the concept of evidence - one with which you're unacquainted - it would avail nothing to try to explain it to you even if space permitted.
They're only useless when you come up against people who don't understand science.

Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker.
But is is about truth in the end. Men of science have mixed ideas and so I am afraid your answer does not really apply to the situation at hand.

[Sassy]

In which case it is just as useless for you to produce your above pessimistic message. Why not start taking some enjoyment in the capacity that humans have for trying to expand our knowledge and understanding of the world we all live in?   It isn't all bad, you know.

When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?

[Enki]

When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?

I don't study 'everything' but in the areas that I do study I try to absorb all sorts of  knowledge. If I read a book, for instance, by David Bentley Hart on 'The Experience of God', I don't choose the knowledge, the ideas, the arguments that are contained therein. What I do is look at all such ideas, arguments and knowledge critically, often in the light of other ideas etc. that I have also absorbed.

As regards evolution, I find the body of evidence that supports it to be overwhelming, so,  unless clear evidence can be produced that suggests that it is wrong or needs to be radically modified, then I'll happily go along with it. I can't prove it, but science isn't about 'proving' at all, if you bothered to acquaint yourself with basic scientific principles. I can't actually 'prove' anything in science, just as you can't either. What affects my viewpoint is evidence, the stronger the better. This is one reason why I remain an atheist. I find no evidence that any god exists.  

[SteveH]

When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?

As I'm sure you know perfectly well, evolution by natural selection is as near proven as anything in science ever is.

[Stranger]

Men of greater knowledge and qualifications than you do not agree Shaker.
But is is about truth in the end. Men of science have mixed ideas and so I am afraid your answer does not really apply to the situation at hand.

To say that "men of science have mixed ideas" in the context of the basic truth of evolution, is (apart from being sexist) misleading. Of those people who are qualified in, and study these things, almost all of them agree that the evidence for evolution is way beyond reasonable doubt. Of the tiny, tiny minority that disagree, almost all of them have an obvious religiously motivated reason to do so - they are obviously biased.

[torridon]

When you study everything Enki, the truth is that you choose your knowledge and the fact remains men and science regarding evolution have not been able to 'PROVE' anything have they?

Science doesn't deal in proofs.  Maths and formal logic deal in proofs and they are able to because they are self contained abstractions.  Science deals with the real world, messy and complex and always in a context of limited data.  Science doesn't give us ultimate truth but it helps point us in the right direction through principals of evidence and reason; it is disingenuous to ignore the findings of science on the basis that they aren't pure maths or logic.

[Spud]

torridon,

If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

[torridon]

torridon,

If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

That is confused on several levels, still conflating concepts of 'proof' with 'evidence' and also complicated by a negative proof fallacy. Apart from all of which, there is abundant evidence of evolution in bacteria, which notoriously evolve rapidly, hence current concerns around antibiotic resistance.  You managed to shoot yourself in the foot three times in a very short space somehow,

[Gordon]

torridon,

If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation.

Then you certainly have some elephants - but how have you 'proved' the 'four' element?
 

Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

Nope - you need to do some more homework, Spud, then you wouldn't make silly mistakes such as this.

[Stranger]

So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

No, you've just demonstrated your ignorance of both science in general and evolution in particular (again).

So you're back, have you thought any more about the two questions you avoided before (I've also added a third)?

• Why is it that almost all the people who study these things (from many nationalities, cultures, and faiths) agree that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution and common decent is overwhelming and of the tiny, tiny minority that don't, pretty much all of them have an obvious religious agenda?
  
  
• If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
  
  
• If this is about science, why is it that creationist sites are riddled with misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods?

As I said before, some amateur with little actual knowledge and a faith based disbelief can rummage around in the details (aided and abetted by creationist misinformation) and find endless supposed 'problems' and people can keep looking up the answers for them and they'll just move on to something else.

It's an endless and utterly pointless exercise.

[Spud]

Then you certainly have some elephants - but how have you 'proved' the 'four' element?
 
Nope - you need to do some more homework, Spud, then you wouldn't make silly mistakes such as this.

I told you- I counted them, a method that is repeatable by anyone who has four of something.

That is confused on several levels, still conflating concepts of 'proof' with 'evidence' and also complicated by a negative proof fallacy. Apart from all of which, there is abundant evidence of evolution in bacteria, which notoriously evolve rapidly, hence current concerns around antibiotic resistance.  You managed to shoot yourself in the foot three times in a very short space somehow,

Thank you, we now know what is meant by the word "evolve" and also what is not meant.

[wigginhall]

I thought that the proof that 1 + 1 = 2, involves a lengthy working out.  But I think it's in Principia Mathematica.   As Stranger said, God protect us from amateurs with prejudices.

[Stranger]

I told you- I counted them, a method that is repeatable by anyone who has four of something.

And the conclusion you have drawn is scientifically illiterate - a simplistic misunderstanding of how evolution works. It is not a process that leads inevitably down one path. It does not always increase complexity or result in any specific outcome.

The evolution of a specific trait will generally only happen when there is some aspect of the environment that means that the trait confers an advantage. So, for example, bacteria will only develop immunity to an antibiotic if there the antibiotic is present in its environment.

Is the penny beginning to drop here at all?

Thank you, we now know what is meant by the word "evolve" and also what is not meant.

Don't be silly. How about the questions in #409, Spud ?

Don't you see how daft it is trying to claim that you (who are rather obviously undereducated in science in general and evolution in particular) have found some problem that means that almost all of the world's experts in the field are wrong?

[jeremyp]

torridon,

If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

A thousand generations is nothing, it's about 14 days. It normally takes about 500 million years.

[Roses]

torridon,

If I want to prove that 2+2=4, all I have to do is get two elephants, then get another two elephants, then count up how many there are. I can prove evolution the same way: by observation. Bacteria can reproduce every half an hour. If bacteria were observed to change into multicellular creatures, that would prove evolution. When we count the number of cells in bacteria after 1,000 generations, we count 1 cell which is still a bacteria. So we have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evolution.

Oh dear, you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.

[SteveH]

Oh dear, you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.

I agree, for once. 1,000 generations is no time at all. In human beings, it takes us back about 25,000 years, and any evolutionary changes in humans in that time are insignificant.

[Roses]

I agree, for once. 1,000 generations is no time at all. In human beings, it takes us back about 25,000 years, and any evolutionary changes in humans in that time are insignificant.

You better have a lie down in case the shock of agreeing with me is too much for you!

[Spud]

• If you agree that natural selection can produce small changes, what is it that stops these small changes from adding up to arbitrarily large changes given sufficient time?
  
  

The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.

[Spud]

You better have a lie down in case the shock of agreeing with me is too much for you!

Steve might end up in H

[Gordon]

The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.

If that is your best analogy then you need to work harder at analogies, Spud.

[Spud]

I suppose a car is a horse-drawn carriage, with an extra set of duplicated wheels, and a mutated horse for an engine!

[Spud]

If that is your best analogy then you need to work harder at analogies, Spud.

I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time

[Stranger]

The best analogy I can think of is this: the first car was not a modified bicycle. The first airplane was not a modified car or bicycle. You could fix two bicycles together side by side and put a seat between them, but that won't make it a car. You need to build an engine. The first airplane wasn't a modified car, it had to be designed from scratch. They had to build an engine that pushes or pulls the vehicle through the air, not one that turns a set of wheels. Also a wing was needed to give lift.
Although the bicycle, car and airplane appeared in an apparently evolutionary sequence, they were made separately.

Oh well then, if you put it like that, obviously nearly all the world's experts are wrong and you are right!




Err, hang on though, what you said actually has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution so you didn't even answer the question you quoted, let alone the other ones you continue to ignore...       

[Stranger]

I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time

Except you aren't considering items that exhibit small changes due to inheritance, variation, and natural selection. Every change to human designed objects comes about through deliberate action. There no mechanism for tiny changes that make things better suited to their environment building up over time.

Am I really having to point this out?

[Gordon]

I'm saying that many small changes don't necessarily add up to arbitrary changes given sufficient time

So you are: sadly your case isn't helped by an irrelevant analogy.