Why evolution is true

[SteveH]

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.

Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!

[Harrowby Hall]

Except, Steve, for the fact that Spud's process appears to contain a desire for "improvement" - and this implies intent and hence the presence of a designer.

The real process of natural selection involves a constant flow of mutations - the vast majority of which are destined never to become a permanent part of a species genotype.

[Spud]

Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!

Steve, thanks! I was thinking of how a bacteria could turn into a multicellular organism, but I suppose this will be explained at some point too. But you have a good point. I've been through all three examples before, but need to re-read about them. The whale rear legs have been modified to support the reproductive organs, the embryonic tail is due to rapid lengthening of the vertebral column and the ear ossicles at some point became used for hearing not chewing, but we will look at that tomorrow as I have a busy evening.

[jeremyp]

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.

Nobody is disputing the fact that cars, aeroplanes and bicycles were all designed.

[Harrowby Hall]

I was thinking of how a bacteria could turn into a multicellular organism, but I suppose this will be explained at some point too. But you have a good point. I've been through all three examples before, but need to re-read about them. The whale rear legs have been modified to support the reproductive organs, the embryonic tail is due to rapid lengthening of the vertebral column and the ear ossicles at some point became used for hearing not chewing, but we will look at that tomorrow as I have a busy evening.

I know I have made this point before, Spud, but you are constantly giving me the impression that you think that evolution is a purposeful activity with goals and objectives - even short term objectives.

This is not the case. There are no objectives in natural selection. There is no intention. There is no grand design.   Everything we see is the result of fortunate accident. In order for successful organisms to exist today, countless species have disappeared because they were not adapted to be able to cope with environmental change.

[Spud]

Exactly - and animals ARE modified from earlier animals! Whales have vestigial rear legs, mammalian inner ears are modified from the jaws of reptiles, humans have vestigial tails, and so on - you have just provided excellent evidence for evolution!

Hi Steve,
You made an interesting point, and I would like to address the human tail first. Yes, the human embryo appears to have a tail at around 5 weeks. But it does not contain any of the vertebrae-forming tissues, so is not a tail in the sense that you imply. It contains the hindgut, which gives rise to the distal third of the transverse colon, the descending colon, sigmoid, rectum, and upper part of the anal canal. Also the endoderm of the hindgut forms the internal lining of the bladder and urethra. (From Langman's Medical Embryology).

[Spud]

For more information on the development of the human tail bud:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1741-4520.2012.00387.x

[jeremyp]

Hi Steve,
You made an interesting point, and I would like to address the human tail first. Yes, the human embryo appears to have a tail at around 5 weeks. But it does not contain any of the vertebrae-forming tissues, so is not a tail in the sense that you imply. It contains the hindgut, which gives rise to the distal third of the transverse colon, the descending colon, sigmoid, rectum, and upper part of the anal canal. Also the endoderm of the hindgut forms the internal lining of the bladder and urethra. (From Langman's Medical Embryology).

Human adults have a vestigial tail. Did you not know that?

[Spud]

Human adults have a vestigial tail. Did you not know that?

Hypothesis dressed up as fact.

[jeremyp]

Hypothesis dressed up as fact.

No. It’s definitely there.

[Spud]

No. It’s definitely there.

You want to call three fused, internal bones to which muscles important for urinary and bowel control are attached, a tail.... fine... You also want to say it's been converted from an external tail that was used for balance in the trees... evidence required I think.

[Stranger]

How about the questions, Spud?

• 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?

I'm not counting the utterly irrelevant 'analogy' for 2, it was too silly. Surely you must see the absurdity of an ill-informed amateur looking for some detail that will show that nearly all the world's experts are wrong?

[Spud]

How about the questions, Spud?

• 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?

I'm not counting the utterly irrelevant 'analogy' for 2, it was too silly. Surely you must see the absurdity of an ill-informed amateur looking for some detail that will show that nearly all the world's experts are wrong?

Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.
My irrelevant analogy led to three examples, one of which I've focused on in detail because I've read the small print before. Each of the many examples put forward by evolutionists has to be looked at properly, and yes, creationist websites need to be more professional.

[Sebastian Toe]

Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.

Multitudes of people can be wrong.
Christianity is not true just because they agree it is.
Creationism is not true just because they agree it is.

[Stranger]

Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.

Yes multitudes of people can be wrong and nothing is true just because people agree. We need to draw conclusions based on the evidence.

In this instance, we have an almost complete consensus amongst the experts who have studied the evidence, that said evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and almost all of the dissenters have an obvious, religious bias. Given that you are (very obviously) an amateur, not only in evolution but in science in general, what do you think the chances are that you would be able to spot something in the detail of the evidence that has somehow eluded almost all of the experts and that would bring down the entire theory?

Bear in mind also that the evidence for this theory comes from more than one area of study; it was first developed before the discovery of genetics and could easily have been falsified by it, but instead was spectacularly confirmed - to the extent that the entire case for evolution could be made from genetics alone.

My irrelevant analogy led to three examples...

Your analogy was about manufactured items and was hence totally irrelevant. Other people brought up vestigial organs.

[SteveH]

Multitudes of people can be wrong. Evolution is not true just because they agree it is.

Nobody's suggesting otherwise. Evolution is true because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

[Spud]

Yes multitudes of people can be wrong and nothing is true just because people agree. We need to draw conclusions based on the evidence.

In this instance, we have an almost complete consensus amongst the experts who have studied the evidence, that said evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and almost all of the dissenters have an obvious, religious bias. Given that you are (very obviously) an amateur, not only in evolution but in science in general, what do you think the chances are that you would be able to spot something in the detail of the evidence that has somehow eluded almost all of the experts and that would bring down the entire theory?

Bear in mind also that the evidence for this theory comes from more than one area of study; it was first developed before the discovery of genetics and could easily have been falsified by it, but instead was spectacularly confirmed - to the extent that the entire case for evolution could be made from genetics alone.

Your analogy was about manufactured items and was hence totally irrelevant. Other people brought up vestigial organs.

I know you are all really clever and can spell "Tuesday" etc, but I am a little bit clever, and I stuck out a 4 year BSc which I passed. I only got a 2:2 though and after 2 years went in a different direction, so you are right, I am an amateur. I'm happy to look through examples one by one and at the moment I think we are on tails and waiting for someone to respond to #435.

[SteveH]

I know you are all really clever and can spell "Tuesday" etc, but I am a little bit clever, and I stuck out a 4 year BSc which I passed. I only got a 2:2 though and after 2 years went in a different direction, so you are right, I am an amateur. I'm happy to look through examples one by one and at the moment I think we are on tails and waiting for someone to respond to #435.

Sarcasm is not an argument.

[Spud]

Sarcasm is not an argument.

It was a compliment, Steve. I was referring to Owl from Winnie the Pooh (respected for his Brain and his ability to spell Tuesday).

[Sassy]

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.

Enki, not questioning the method nor your ability to absorb. Evidence can be circumstantial or positive proof. But in the case of science it is mainly for theory just circumstantial.  Reading and knowing only what you are told about science is not the same as the ability to do everything personally and prove it correct.  God heals people and God does what he says he will. Things come to pass as he foretold. Now the evidence you can't find is the evidence you want only to prove to yourself if a God. When the evidence should be what God does which shows he is real because you want to find who God is and believe. Sometimes the reason for knowing something can be very different for individuals. I have seen God heal so I cannot deny God exists and have proof which for me is the only type which really counts.

[Sassy]

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

Survival of the fittest?  There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.

We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.

[Sassy]

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.

Bad, bad, bad...

Not a good idea is it  to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid.  Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.
It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived. Look at today, without the mod cons of electricity, Gas, housing and water where would be? Then there is still the question of baby or man first. We all know if babies were first no humans would exist. So the reality is as always. Adults in all species has to have come first.  Nothing and I mean nothing would have been here today had it not been so. There is more logical evidence when it comes man thinking for himself in that than anything. When we start here we know scientist do not have the answers we really need.

[SteveH]

Survival of the fittest?  There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.

We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.

What on earth are you on about? I'm talking about evolution generally, not just humans, and there never was a time in the prehistorical past when humans didn't eat properly: the stone-age diet was pretty much ideal. Stone-age people's lives were dangerous, and they had no effective medicine, so their life-expectancy was presumably low, but that had nothing to do with their diet.

[SteveH]

Bad, bad, bad...

Not a good idea is it  to use qualified because they are man made qualification based on a lot of suppositions and maybes. Theories which cannot all be proved and the teachings of man thus so far.
Man is arrogant and many just follow what they choose to believe like the emperors new clothes afraid to look stupid.  Evolution if it existed would have new species abounding everyday.
It never happened because it does not happen now. We have no proof and never had that species evolved into better species and survived.

Actually, there are dozens if not hundreds of examples of the spontaneous evolution of new species in the wild which have been observed.

[torridon]

Survival of the fittest?  There is no evidence of natural selection. There is evidence that when people started eating properly and their bodies received nutrition they survived and as today proves with medical treatment are living longer. But their is not evidence man changed naturally and suddenly better able to survive.

We know life is really about many things.. We see the different types of sickness and illness. Life is general people better equipped to live and survive longer. But survival is about is having enough to eat and drink so live in the right shelter. We did not get fitter by the body adapting... we got fitter by eating and drinking the right food.

Evidence of natural selection is all around us. How do you imagine Europeans got their white skin ?  It wasn't because they 'started eating properly'.  Have you never come across a European ?