Evidence for evolution

Macrobstar

New member
Apr 28, 2010
896
0
0
So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.
 

gigastrike

New member
Jul 13, 2008
3,112
0
0
The most convincing evidence for evolution is when the Vatican came out and said that they accept that evolution exists. I'd look for the article, but I'm too lazy.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
People like that aren't going to be swayed by logic and evidence, it's typically either a knee-jerk emotional reaction coming from a challenge to one's religious belief's, or.. he could be just performing a very subtle Devil's Advocate to make you think more constructively on your own evidence and thoughts surrounding Evolution - to give you a better understanding of it for such troubles (the "benefit of the doubt"). Or.. he could just not understand the science he's heard around Evolution either, and argues from personal incredulity (though that would seem to likely tie into the first possible reason as well). Your best bet is probably to just to see your dad as disingenuous in his demands to make you find "proof" of something he is going to deny either way, and leave it at that.

..Or if you are really sure you might get through somewhere, a video sit-down might be of some information, at least. And the speaker is a Roman Catholic, at that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
gigastrike said:
The most convincing evidence for evolution is when the Vatican came out and said that they accept that evolution exists. I'd look for the article, but I'm too lazy.
Unless his father is Catholic, it wouldn't work.

You could try to explain it to him that it is as much a theory as Gravity is. That we have it extremely fleshed out and that the 'its only a theory' idea is never mentioned by scientists. (In fact, Reagan was the first man I know of to say it out loud and I don't think he is anywhere near qualified to be speaking on that topic.)

You could also tell him not to believe in everything Sarah Bachmann spouts seeing as she is wrong on every account. The fossil record, geologic records, ocean currents, atmospheric changes, mass extinctions, tectonic and continental shifts all hold evidence for evolution.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Macrobstar said:
So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
Tell them that in science "theory" means something else than it means in CSI and that in science, a "theory" isn't a "wild guess" and that it most definitely is not "just a".

If they still resist direct them to an armed nuke IN SPACE! and tell them to sit on it while you hit the trigger. After all, it's "just" the atomic "theory" behind it.
 

Macrobstar

New member
Apr 28, 2010
896
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Macrobstar said:
So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
Tell them that in science "theory" means something else than it means in CSI and that in science, a "theory" isn't a "wild guess" and that it most definitely is not "just a".

If they still resist direct them to an armed nuke IN SPACE! and tell them to sit on it while you hit the trigger. After all, it's "just" the atomic "theory" behind it.
So what does an idea have to do to be labelled a theory? I need it to be put so he can understand that there is evidence behind it. He thinks that its just wild speculation being taught in schools
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Tell him about so called 'superbugs' in hospitals like MRSA. That's clearly natural selection at work
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Macrobstar said:
Vegosiux said:
Macrobstar said:
So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
Tell them that in science "theory" means something else than it means in CSI and that in science, a "theory" isn't a "wild guess" and that it most definitely is not "just a".

If they still resist direct them to an armed nuke IN SPACE! and tell them to sit on it while you hit the trigger. After all, it's "just" the atomic "theory" behind it.
So what does an idea have to do to be labelled a theory? I need it to be put so he can understand that there is evidence behind it. He thinks that its just wild speculation being taught in schools
Well, they're mixing up terms. The word they're looking for is "hypothesis". But even that is an educated guess usually, not a wild one. Now, if a hypothesis passes through extensive testing without being disproved, it may be promoted to theory.

Now, a "scientific law" is something accepted at face value that does not require extensive testing, since they've been observed to be universally and obviously true (such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc).

So what you start with is a hypothesis, which you then submit to extensive scrutiny and experimentation. If it passes, it may be elevated to theory, a set of rules and statements that are widely accepted to indeed be true according to what we know so far. But for something to become a law, it must be obviously and universally true. As such, theories keep being updated and even replaced if new data conflicts with them.

That's the beauty of science. If a result is found that is impossible according to our current theories, science will admit that what happened is not impossible, we merely set the boundary between possible and impossible wrong. Then work on moving that boundary to a more correct position.
 

Weentastic

New member
Dec 9, 2011
90
0
0
Macrobstar said:
So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.

Alright, I'm going to put a smidgen of effort into this post, because it is something that is important to me. I'm a Christian, but I cuss and don't particularly care for political parties so I suppose you can take that for what it is (hint: it's not about either of those things). I also have a degree in biology. It's nothing fancy but its dipped me into the sciences a bit more than some of my peers and it was done so in a very SCIENTIFIC manner so I figure it counts for something.

First off, I need to clarify something. SCIENCE is not a word you throw around when something is complicated. Science in its most rigorous and true form is based around the scientific method. The scientific method is basically about falsifying things. NOT proving them. As many stoned philosophy majors and non-stoned science majors have conjectured, you can't really prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, either physically or logically. For philosophical beliefs, it seems like all it takes is someone to take a slightly different perspective before they arrive at a completely different conclusion with little to objectively argue about. With physical laws and such, there are so many variables even in even the simplest of realistic systems that we can never rule out completely that we haven't missed something crucial.

Anyway, with the magic of science, we can attempt to understand the mechanics that lie behind what we experience in the world, by using the scientific method. In its simplest form, you observe something, you make an educated guess on how you think it works (hypothesize), and then you go about experimenting to try and disprove your hypothesis. As I said, no one's figured out a good way to experiment to PROVE something, only to disprove something. In the real world, the wonders of science have some helpful conventions in the form of the scientific community, based mostly around scholarly journals. There are also some regulatory bodies so that human testing doesn't go bonkers and things like that. But in the end it boils down to disproving things, not proving them. And then repeating it, and reiterating it, and modifying it until everyone is so sick and tired of the subject and we've nearly run out of ways to try and disprove it and the hypothesis for how things work is turned into a respected theory on how things work.

Its true that a theory is actually quite sound compared to the usual connotation of the word theory. I'm sorry to say that some of my Christian brethren can misunderstand it like anyone else, and they often try to use it to defend themselves. You'll notice that the definition of science is dependent on experimentation for the purposes of falsehood. This would mean that to, oh say, use science on something like God or Ghosts or Cthulu or true love you would not be out to prove those things, but to try as hard as you can to disprove them. And that would require an experiment. As immaterial or at least intangible things, those previous listed things can't be experimented on and thus cannot be scientifically disproved. I would really appreciate it if people would stop trying to do that.

Now that's the first point, basically if you can't experiment on something repeatedly in a controlled environment, its not "scientific". So God isn't scientific and Creationism isn't "scientific" because you will never be able to run an experiment disproving those hypotheses for how the world works. The second point is a bit more traditional in the sense that I love Jesus a whole huggy bunch. And its that evolution as most people understand it isn't scientific either, or at least not right now it isn't.

Evolution is defined as the shift in allele frequency in a population. Basically that means that certain genetic traits will fluctuate in a population over time due to a variety of circumstances. Now this true form of evolution is an actual, scientific theory, for hopefully obvious reasons. We have observed and tested, and experimented in a whole lot of ways over a lot of time to find that, yes indeed, genetic traits do fluctuate in a population. Unfortunately, someone decided it would be a good idea to use that same very well defined word for a whole lot of vague happenings. The origin of species might be a good phrase for what evolution seems to mean for a lot of people. When people hear the word evolution, they think of the whole idea of fruit flies having spider babies. The idea that the diversity of species that we see today is a product of a completely unaided process called evolution through mutation is attached to that single word "evolution".

Now the question is if that larger, more colloquial definition of evolution is the sole mechanic by which the diversity of species that exists came to be. In order for us to answer that question scientifically we would need some observations. We have lots of those regarding the similarities and differences between organisms, and some of the better understood mechanics regarding their biology. Then we need a hypothesis or two to explain those observations. We have two of those, if not more. One of them is the aforementioned evolution, and the other is the uber-aforementioned creationism. The problem lies again with the disproving through experiment. We have no way to test these two hypotheses! We can dance around the subject and show that certain things are really hard to come by through evolution and other things are produced by evolution with time, but reproducing anything close to the amount of genetic change present between two classes of organisms requires multitudes of generations and way too much time, and the variables surrounding the experiment are just too great to control. Creationism can't be tested because it requires something a bit more potent than magic.

My point in that fairly ramblomatic session is that science is not equipped to satisfy either of these two hypotheses. It's not due to technology, but due to the nature of the hypotheses and the nature of science. Science is about disproving things, and one hypothesis requires infinite power that can get around any amount of disapproving experiments and the other has infinite amounts of time and "chance" that can get around any disapproving experiments.

And on a completely different but relevant point, both sides need to stop fighting over it. Christians need to remember that our God is not a God of philosophy, logical arguments, or science. He is a God or infinite power and wisdom that surpasses even the most strongly worded argument, the most rigorous experiment, or the most stoned hippy. Those are human constructs, and he made the very fabric that they are made out of. And the atheists can take a hint from this. If you aren't going to be swayed by logical arguments, philosophical treatises, or Bible thumping, we probably won't be swayed by your equivalents. Our God wins battles through hearts and relationships, not through swords or shouting matches.

Remember that I won't respect your insults if they have acronyms in the posts.

TL;DR
People often misunderstand what science is about and should reconsider its actual uses, like making microwave ovens cook faster.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Ask him why an interracial couple will have kids with features from both races?


Or better yet, ask him why you look like him and not the milkman. Basically it explains how genetics work, and how we pass our traits to out children. And how we "evolve" by mixing our best features.

I mean, even before Charles Darwin people knew that humans (and even their farm animals) have children with their traits. We have been breeding many kinds of animals, and even plants.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
The Galapogas islands are a really good example for understanding it intuitively, all the birds looking really similar apart from beak size. The birds on different islands have different sizes of fruit/nuts to eat, so need different sizes of beaks, and have acquired them gradually through evolution.

Also explain that a scientific theory is a lot different from a 'theory' in the popular sense. It's backed up by hard evidence & has stood its ground against many tests.
 

baconfist

New member
Sep 8, 2009
70
0
0
Don't bother with evidence. There's people who believe in creationism and people who look at evidence and if a ven diagram were drawn neither circle would ever touch.
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Well, they're mixing up terms. The word they're looking for is "hypothesis". But even that is an educated guess usually, not a wild one. Now, if a hypothesis passes through extensive testing without being disproved, it may be promoted to theory.

Now, a "scientific law" is something accepted at face value that does not require extensive testing, since they've been observed to be universally and obviously true (such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc).

So what you start with is a hypothesis, which you then submit to extensive scrutiny and experimentation. If it passes, it may be elevated to theory, a set of rules and statements that are widely accepted to indeed be true according to what we know so far. But for something to become a law, it must be obviously and universally true. As such, theories keep being updated and even replaced if new data conflicts with them.

That's the beauty of science. If a result is found that is impossible according to our current theories, science will admit that what happened is not impossible, we merely set the boundary between possible and impossible wrong. Then work on moving that boundary to a more correct position.
While I appreciate that you're attempting to help someone understand science, you're not the one to do it. No offense meant... but you're misinformed yourself and the public schools are to blame. What you defined was my understanding of theories and whatall until I got to college.

Hypothesis - an educated guess, as you said. Something is observed, which raises a question... a guess is made and various circumstances are set up to recreate (test) the previously observed event. If the circumstances fail to repeat the originally observed event, the guess is modified and retested. Hypotheses, you could say, are the various attempts at explaining observed phenomena.

Theories, on the other hand, are the body of research related to a particular topic... and may include several competing hypotheses. For example, nuclear theory is not one idea about how atomic and sub-atomic particles interact: it's a whole body of work related to those ideas.

Scientific law, on the other hand, is something else entirely. Laws are simple maxims or equations that always hold true under their specific limits. For example, and this is taken from Wikipedia for the sake of expedience:
"Hooke's law of elasticity is an approximation that states that the extension of a spring is in direct proportion with the load applied to it. Many materials obey this law as long as the load does not exceed the material's elastic limit."

What is Hooke's law? Mathematically expressed, it's F=-kx.

As you can probably tell from reading these definitions, the "promotion" idea isn't accurate. Hypotheses may lead to new theories... and the work on the theories may let people discover new laws... but a hypothesis doesn't become a theory and then a law. But as I said, it's a common misconception thanks to our public schools.

Hope that clears things up.

Anyway, back to OT. If your dad won't listen to the evidence, perhaps he'll be ridiculed into re-assessing his beliefs. If he's made aware of how utterly foolish his creationist ideas make him look, perhaps he'll start to question them on his own.

I'd recommend playing the "Why People Laugh At Creationist" videos on YouTube. If you want hard evidence though, check out AronRa's channel on YouTube. He gets a little bit in-depth, but facts are facts... and if your dad can't accept that, please advise him to not vote.
 

Shiftygiant

New member
Apr 12, 2011
433
0
0
Horses. Show him the evolution of horses. Then show him natural selection (It wont take long). Show him various types of the same animal like cats, dogs and spiders (Environmental adaptations) Finally sit him down and make him read Darwin's theory of evolution, and question why he cannot grasp that evolution happened whether or not god was involved at any point. If all that fails just check out AronRa on youtube. He he still can't accept, well I'm sorry but he is close minded idiot.
 

drmigit2

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
To look at a very direct form of evolution we need look no further than germs. We have overused antibiotics and now the ones that could resist them have multiplied rendering them worthless, survival of the fittest fits with evolution with certain traits surviving through their utility to the organism. A hint though, many creationists ignore logic, I would recommend dropping the argument before you damage your relationship with your father.