Well if he doesn't intend to listen then you really can't educate him on anything, some people are just far more comfortable in their ignorant little world.
Evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Macrobstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Silly.Macrobstar said:
There isn't "more" evidence for either intelligent design or macroevolution. They both have the same amount of evidence and same fossils and same earth and solar system to study. To say one has less evidence than the other is naive, because it's not about who has the most proof but who interprets it correctly. It's all about predetermined biases. Also, not every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution. A great example of this would be the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). They are all masters of their scientific fields, and yet they still believe in intelligent design.
Here they are:
John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics
D. Russell Heumphreys, Ph.D. Physics'
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology
Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering
William Hoesch, M.S. Geology
Stephen Boyd, Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy
John Byl, Ph.D. Astronomy
Tom Greene, Ph.D. Astronomy
Dave Harrison, Ph.D. Astrophysics
James Dire, Ph.D. Astrophysics
Keith Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
Elain Kennedy, Ph.D. Geology
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ross S. Anderson, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics
Linda K. Walkup, Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Ray Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology
Gary E. Parker, Ph.D. Biology
Robert Herrmann, Ph.D. Mathematics
Bryant Wood, Ph.D. Archaeology
Charles Taylor, Ph.D. Linguistics (O.T.)
Robert Cole, Ph.D Semitic Languages
Hermann Austel, Ph.D. Professor Bible Exposition
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics
D. Russell Heumphreys, Ph.D. Physics'
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology
Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology
Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics
John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering
William Hoesch, M.S. Geology
Stephen Boyd, Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy
John Byl, Ph.D. Astronomy
Tom Greene, Ph.D. Astronomy
Dave Harrison, Ph.D. Astrophysics
James Dire, Ph.D. Astrophysics
Keith Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
Elain Kennedy, Ph.D. Geology
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ross S. Anderson, Ph.D. Biochemistry
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Kelly Hollowell, Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics
Linda K. Walkup, Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Ray Bohlin, Ph.D. Molecular and Cell Biology
Gary E. Parker, Ph.D. Biology
Robert Herrmann, Ph.D. Mathematics
Bryant Wood, Ph.D. Archaeology
Charles Taylor, Ph.D. Linguistics (O.T.)
Robert Cole, Ph.D Semitic Languages
Hermann Austel, Ph.D. Professor Bible Exposition
Also, others might disagree, but if you are trying to convince your Dad rather than start another argument where you come out on top, don't speak of evolution. Lots of comments are telling you to tell him about evolution of some sort. Don't do that. Rather than that, speak to him of dating systems and the likes. If you talk to him about evolution he will just say that it's not possible because God made all things. I would recommend researching it from both perspectives before doing that though, so you know what to say and do. Remember, you aren't trying to just win an argument, you are trying to convince your Dad to change his mind on something, so you might even have to spend some money on books if you really want to research these things.
Unless you are just trying to win the argument, in which case you are a dick (because he's your Dad).
I'm afraid you've misunderstood what science is about, too.Weentastic said:
The Scientific Method as you've described it is a wonderful thing. It's a driving engine behind our modern knowledge. But it's not the only engine. There are whole realms of sciences - astronomy comes to mind - where direct controlled experimentation isn't possible. But they're still sciences. When we need to identify them, we call them "observational sciences".*
Basically these are sciences that let nature do the experiments for us. Astronomy has a whole night sky filled with billions and billions of stars. So even though we never set up an experiment, we still have a wealth of data sitting ready for us to analyse. In the same way, evolutionary biology never set up an experiment,** but there's so much evidence - fossils, morphology, genetics, geographic distribution - that we can connect the dots and build reliable theories.
And yes, those theories can be falsified, if we just find some evidence against them. We never have.
Wikipedia has an extremely long article, reflecting the extremely extensive degree of evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent]. To scientists, evolution is not even slightly controversial.
* (Actually, few sciences are purely one category or the other. We're not that stupid; we can and do combine evidence from experimental and observational sources. Oh, and there's a third group - formal sciences, which are based on reasoning. Computer science and mathematics are examples of formal sciences.)
** (Well, actually, experiments have been done. If you pick the right species, it's not hard.)
Interesting how few of those scientists' degrees have anything to do with evolution. Linguistics? Bible Exposition?AMMO Kid said:
Besides, this is an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because you have letters after your name doesn't mean your opinion is right. The only sort of appeal to authority that's valid is an appeal to the relevant professional consensus.* And that heavily favours evolution.
* (Strictly logically, that's not true either. At best it's a rhetorical shortcut, trusting that the majority of experts are right because you don't have the time and resources to reinvent the field yourself. It can be overturned if the consensus changes - famous example: the existence of the aether. So good arguments need to refer to actual evidence too. (There was never any evidence for the aether.))
edited a couple times because I can never get ideas clear enough the first time
As I Catholic, I have to say that I was not aware that some people still lived in the Dark Ages.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Above is a list of observed instances of speciation. You can also point out the obvious domestication of dogs and cats and so forth, there are new species created all the time. Absolutely no one, not even believers of intelligent design deny that there is micro evolution.
Do two parents with red hair often have red haired children? What if we kill off everyone with blonde or brunette hair. Would almost everyone born in the human species thereafter have red hair? You bet. That's micro evolution that's all that means.
You add up a bunch of that over a long period of time and you have macro evolution. The arguments people try to use against macro evolution are that things either are too complex to evolve correctly(commonly the human eye argument.) The other argument is that there is simply not enough genetic material for that to make sense.
The latter argument is that, a fish is less complex so how can it evolve into something bigger. Which is like saying a baby is small how can it become a person. It does not matter how tiny the baby is just like it does not matter that the fish does not have as advanced eyes, or legs and so on and so forth. What matter is the genetic set of instructions that dictate what happens. Inside each cell is DNA, the code that says exactly how a bunch of gametes become a fish, or how a bunch of gametes eventually become a baby and then a fully grown person. What matter is the instructions. So most people who try to refute evolution just jump to the conclusion that smaller things must have less genetic code because how dare anything but Human-Beings be the center of the universe. Except that isn't the case at all and it's an egotistical assumption. In fact it is the opposite, A Human has less chromosomes than an ape, and apes have less chromosomes than fish, and fish have less chromosomes than cockroaches, and cockroaches have less chromosomes than amoebas.
The former argument(that of the eyes complexity.) Is based on ignorance because there is a huge trail of evidence about the evolution of the eye. There are various currently existing species in various stages of eye development. 'Fully developed' eyes such as ours, eyes incapable of discerning colors like dogs, eyes that are only capable of detecting light or not detecting light like a binary switch, light detectors that aren't even eyes because they just detect light through thin layers of skin, all the way to animals that are totally blind.
As a conclusion: There is more than enough evidence to make evolution a virtual certainty. Anyone rejecting it either has not done their homework or is going to come up with stupid arguments and broken logic to support their claim. You can't take the time to explain to everyone what chromosomes are, and how they were discovered, and how microscopes work, and how carbon dating works and so on and so forth. If they haven't yet taken the time to learn these things or take them on good faith because the scientific system is self-correcting and self-reviewing then you can't convince them of anything. Beyond this there is actually no way to assure that there really is no intelligent design or disprove it. Because even if one accepts evolution exists, there is nothing that says God can't have created the system or guided it as he saw fit. But there is absolutely no evidence for or against that, which is why it must be taken on belief.
Above is a list of observed instances of speciation. You can also point out the obvious domestication of dogs and cats and so forth, there are new species created all the time. Absolutely no one, not even believers of intelligent design deny that there is micro evolution.
Do two parents with red hair often have red haired children? What if we kill off everyone with blonde or brunette hair. Would almost everyone born in the human species thereafter have red hair? You bet. That's micro evolution that's all that means.
You add up a bunch of that over a long period of time and you have macro evolution. The arguments people try to use against macro evolution are that things either are too complex to evolve correctly(commonly the human eye argument.) The other argument is that there is simply not enough genetic material for that to make sense.
The latter argument is that, a fish is less complex so how can it evolve into something bigger. Which is like saying a baby is small how can it become a person. It does not matter how tiny the baby is just like it does not matter that the fish does not have as advanced eyes, or legs and so on and so forth. What matter is the genetic set of instructions that dictate what happens. Inside each cell is DNA, the code that says exactly how a bunch of gametes become a fish, or how a bunch of gametes eventually become a baby and then a fully grown person. What matter is the instructions. So most people who try to refute evolution just jump to the conclusion that smaller things must have less genetic code because how dare anything but Human-Beings be the center of the universe. Except that isn't the case at all and it's an egotistical assumption. In fact it is the opposite, A Human has less chromosomes than an ape, and apes have less chromosomes than fish, and fish have less chromosomes than cockroaches, and cockroaches have less chromosomes than amoebas.
The former argument(that of the eyes complexity.) Is based on ignorance because there is a huge trail of evidence about the evolution of the eye. There are various currently existing species in various stages of eye development. 'Fully developed' eyes such as ours, eyes incapable of discerning colors like dogs, eyes that are only capable of detecting light or not detecting light like a binary switch, light detectors that aren't even eyes because they just detect light through thin layers of skin, all the way to animals that are totally blind.
As a conclusion: There is more than enough evidence to make evolution a virtual certainty. Anyone rejecting it either has not done their homework or is going to come up with stupid arguments and broken logic to support their claim. You can't take the time to explain to everyone what chromosomes are, and how they were discovered, and how microscopes work, and how carbon dating works and so on and so forth. If they haven't yet taken the time to learn these things or take them on good faith because the scientific system is self-correcting and self-reviewing then you can't convince them of anything. Beyond this there is actually no way to assure that there really is no intelligent design or disprove it. Because even if one accepts evolution exists, there is nothing that says God can't have created the system or guided it as he saw fit. But there is absolutely no evidence for or against that, which is why it must be taken on belief.
Genetics alone is enough to prove well beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is correct.
Also, when anyone refers to a scientific theory as 'just a theory', you should just bail that conversation ASAP.
You might as well go argue about tea with a brick wall.
Also, when anyone refers to a scientific theory as 'just a theory', you should just bail that conversation ASAP.
You might as well go argue about tea with a brick wall.
The fact that cross-breeding exists, think of horses.
A horse breeder breeds two fast horses together to make a faster horse.
Then there's also the phrase said around a newborn child to one of the parents, "He's got your eyes!" or variants. Things like that.
There's already too much evidence for evolution to doubt it.
A horse breeder breeds two fast horses together to make a faster horse.
Then there's also the phrase said around a newborn child to one of the parents, "He's got your eyes!" or variants. Things like that.
There's already too much evidence for evolution to doubt it.
The truth about your "respected scientists":AMMO Kid said:
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/john-baumgardner.html
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. - "atmospheric physicist" -> Meteorologist (i.e. WEATHERMAN)
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
And so on...
EDIT: Damn, Naleh beat me to most of this! I was too busy researching the names...
I'm always amused by people who post lists like this. They assume nobody will actually look into the names on the list and see just how much of a joke they really are. They just expect us to be impressed by some people with fancy degrees who happen to agree with them.
Hint: that's not what matters. It's just a basic appeal to authority ("these people believe it and look, they have credentials!")
By the way, I can't seem to find ANY "Dave Harrison" in astrophysics - PhD or otherwise - outside the various copies of this list... fictional list padding?
The funniest part? Some of those degrees aren't even in related fields! Hebraic and Cognitive Studies? Bible Exposition? LINGUISTICS?? Yet all claim to be experts in evolution, yeah?
Also, in case you're curious about the scientific standing of creationism, try looking for published, peer-reviewed, original research on the subject. I'll give you another hint: there isn't any. That's right! Despite the claims that it's science, not a single paper has been published by a single reputable scientific journal (ANY at all, that I could find). That's because creationism isn't a theory, it's not a hypothesis... it's not even science (it's not testable or observable). It's a dead-end conversation stopper. It's not an answer... except for people who aren't even interested in the question in the first place.
Finally:
"Unless you are just trying to win the argument, in which case you are a dick (because he's your Dad)."
What, you can't question your parents? Your parents can be wrong, you know. This guy's dad obviously is... and you're just trying to shut him up. This isn't a respect thing, either. Respect does not mean "I will shut up even if you're completely wrong". Respect is a two-way street. If his dad respected him, he'd listen to his son, hear him out, and decide if he's convinced or not. Real adults don't act like petulant children and try to shut out the things they don't agree with. Real adults know where they stand and can make their own decisions based on the evidence provided... no offense, Macrobstar.
Ok I am by no means viewing this from a religous standpoint and from a purely scientific standpoint. So lets see what happens.
The Finches on the Galopigos islands is a good example. Now before I begin let me ask the question to the people who referenced those birds, did you even read Charles Origin of the Species. I doubt it let me sum up what you were hoping to say, I say hoping because if this wasnt what you were saying then you must have been dropped on your head as and adult. During Darwins trip through those islands he noticed that the birds beaks were different and hypothesized that there was a common ancestor adn yadda yadda there was one with a long beak married another long slender beak, they stacked on top of each other eventually making an entire species with long slender beaks. Today that is known as Microevolution, or natural selecton, and is a scientific law as it can be observed at a measureable rate. Now Macroevolution or just evolution as it is commonly known has less evidence.
Now anyone with a grasp of genetics will know that microevlotuion is completely plausible and can be proven with something as simple as punnet squares, adn by the same token evolution has nevr even gotten past the hypothesis stage and is not even a theory yet. As I said earlier a grasp of genetics will suffice, microevolution is easy to prove because the information to have a longer beak is already there. Yet to have longer talons and bigger wings and eventually become an eagle would involve lots of additional information and the human body just isnt capable of creating that information. Darwin unfortunately did not know this as teh science of gentetics was very young at the time so his theory was very plausible and readily became accepted by openminded scientists. It was only later that genetics advanced and his original hypothesis was proven false. As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption. Now the most widely accepted theory is mutation though judging by what Ive been seeing from this post not so much.
Now that thats out of the way lets look at other less long arguments. Most scientists believe it, most scientists believed the Earth was flat, haha ive got something better. In a world where science is law all theories are argued and evidence is presented according to relevence and it is all looked at with an open mind where new ideas are examined carefully. Sadly we do not live in that world and the moment you try to bring an idea that doesnt reference evolution its like walking in on a PETA meeting asking where the bacon is, despite the evidence against bacon being evil. You try to bring a new idea into a science classroom itscompletely stopped by legal battles against scientists. Id also like to point out the almost crusader like fevor that evolutionists approach something like that, very interestfor people who think there Idea is a valid conclusion. And the OP mentioned fossils, there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton. Most notably the Nebraska man is one of my favorites. For those who dont know scientists claimed they found the missing link based on, and I hope youre wearing a sturdy helmet cause this may blow your mind, a single tooth. They had artist draw up all kinds of convincing sketches of a Bigfoot like creature based on that single tooth. Later it was found to be the tooth of a common pig.
Id keep writing more but my hands are tired and unforunately my pessimism has kept me from believing this willdo any good. I also know that there wil be several arguments posed against and there will be several people callign me a creationist idiot or a superstitous idiot or any kind of idiot without any posting any arguments or evidence against what i have to say. Although im sure ill get a I would pst an argument but i knwo you wont believe it kind of thing.
The Finches on the Galopigos islands is a good example. Now before I begin let me ask the question to the people who referenced those birds, did you even read Charles Origin of the Species. I doubt it let me sum up what you were hoping to say, I say hoping because if this wasnt what you were saying then you must have been dropped on your head as and adult. During Darwins trip through those islands he noticed that the birds beaks were different and hypothesized that there was a common ancestor adn yadda yadda there was one with a long beak married another long slender beak, they stacked on top of each other eventually making an entire species with long slender beaks. Today that is known as Microevolution, or natural selecton, and is a scientific law as it can be observed at a measureable rate. Now Macroevolution or just evolution as it is commonly known has less evidence.
Now anyone with a grasp of genetics will know that microevlotuion is completely plausible and can be proven with something as simple as punnet squares, adn by the same token evolution has nevr even gotten past the hypothesis stage and is not even a theory yet. As I said earlier a grasp of genetics will suffice, microevolution is easy to prove because the information to have a longer beak is already there. Yet to have longer talons and bigger wings and eventually become an eagle would involve lots of additional information and the human body just isnt capable of creating that information. Darwin unfortunately did not know this as teh science of gentetics was very young at the time so his theory was very plausible and readily became accepted by openminded scientists. It was only later that genetics advanced and his original hypothesis was proven false. As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption. Now the most widely accepted theory is mutation though judging by what Ive been seeing from this post not so much.
Now that thats out of the way lets look at other less long arguments. Most scientists believe it, most scientists believed the Earth was flat, haha ive got something better. In a world where science is law all theories are argued and evidence is presented according to relevence and it is all looked at with an open mind where new ideas are examined carefully. Sadly we do not live in that world and the moment you try to bring an idea that doesnt reference evolution its like walking in on a PETA meeting asking where the bacon is, despite the evidence against bacon being evil. You try to bring a new idea into a science classroom itscompletely stopped by legal battles against scientists. Id also like to point out the almost crusader like fevor that evolutionists approach something like that, very interestfor people who think there Idea is a valid conclusion. And the OP mentioned fossils, there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton. Most notably the Nebraska man is one of my favorites. For those who dont know scientists claimed they found the missing link based on, and I hope youre wearing a sturdy helmet cause this may blow your mind, a single tooth. They had artist draw up all kinds of convincing sketches of a Bigfoot like creature based on that single tooth. Later it was found to be the tooth of a common pig.
Id keep writing more but my hands are tired and unforunately my pessimism has kept me from believing this willdo any good. I also know that there wil be several arguments posed against and there will be several people callign me a creationist idiot or a superstitous idiot or any kind of idiot without any posting any arguments or evidence against what i have to say. Although im sure ill get a I would pst an argument but i knwo you wont believe it kind of thing.
It has to be labelled a theory because science knows it's almost never right. We thought We had cracked it with Relativity. Then FTL neutrinos come along.Macrobstar said:
AMMO Kid said:
Naleh said:
These are actually even more bullshit than you think they are, because the questions were even more loaded than a Frank Luntz poll. They basically show up and asked scientists if they can say that evolution is 100% true. And the scientists of course said no because they are scientists and that's what they fucking do. The admit that despite a 99.999999% probability of truth, that it could still be incorrect.
Someone actually checked up on all those signatures by calling the people who were actually in related fields like biology. And they all basically denounced how it was written up as being complete falsehood. They they are pro evolution and against "teaching the controversy."
You're right: science happened. Also, it wasn't an assumption so much as it was inferences.Darkasassin96 said:
Also-also, of COURSE the theory of evolution as it stands today is different than what Darwin had originally shown, so I don't see what the problem is. Also-also-also, the theory of evolution isn't THAT wildly different since it's still based on mutation and natural selection (yeah, yeah, there's genetic drift as well), which are the mechanisms Darwin proposed. So no, it isn't ONLY about mutation.
Side-bar: I've seen it on this site more than others, but I must ask: Why do some people ignore natural selection?
OT: I doubt you're going to convince your dad of anything. My sister knows nothing about evolution at all, so I've learned to never bring it up around her.
If he's religious offer the softer option: Tell him that if he believes a god created life then fine, but it evolved on it's own.
Because as a christian I have to say that 2-6 pages of anonymous people on the internet's thoughts will not effect anyone's religions ideals, so you should try to break it to him in a way that conflicts as little as possible with his beliefs as possible.
Because as a christian I have to say that 2-6 pages of anonymous people on the internet's thoughts will not effect anyone's religions ideals, so you should try to break it to him in a way that conflicts as little as possible with his beliefs as possible.
You won't get anywhere without defining evolution.
If it's turning a single pixel into text or something, it's something some creationists use the term macro-evolution for. That's growing new genetic information for new organs and new functions. It's basically the turning of fruit flies into spiders, web production included.
If it's gradually turning a red pixel blue, it'd be called micro-evolution. Hybrids, breeding, mutations, changes in prevalence of traits in a population all count as this. Most of the evidence in this thread counts as this and won't prove anything to a creationist.
The ones I know don't dispute the latter, but they reject the former as unobservable, improbable, unrepeatable, unscientific.
If it's turning a single pixel into text or something, it's something some creationists use the term macro-evolution for. That's growing new genetic information for new organs and new functions. It's basically the turning of fruit flies into spiders, web production included.
If it's gradually turning a red pixel blue, it'd be called micro-evolution. Hybrids, breeding, mutations, changes in prevalence of traits in a population all count as this. Most of the evidence in this thread counts as this and won't prove anything to a creationist.
The ones I know don't dispute the latter, but they reject the former as unobservable, improbable, unrepeatable, unscientific.
As i must respect you for having more common sense than the tried and true atheist i stand against, and some tried adn true religous people i stand with i must point out three things. One as was expected you did not give any evidence to contradict what i say, two Darwins original theory made no mention of mutation, three i didnt ignore natural selection, i just called by its modern name microevolution, which is as much a scientific law as bacon is delicous(ignore the comparison).zakkro said:
Tsk Tsk. I believe in both actually, and am sad that some people are insistent that evolution can't work just because "it's not in the Bible hur dur". I'll bet money that your dad never read through the entire Bible, but that's not my point.Macrobstar said:
My personal belief is that God made humanity (I also believe in old world Christianity) and humanity and creatures have since evolved as time has passed. I have actually asked committed Christians around me why this couldn't work after they told me evolution is "just a theory" -sigh- and they could not give me ONE reason to differ. Now, I know there are probably complications to my theory to be worked out, but I just hate the assumption by both Christians and atheists alike that
Religion=Denier of science
and
Atheism=Destroyer of happiness and faith.
It irks me beyond reason.
I do say sir, you provided no evidence for your ramblings either. And no, "microevolution" isn't the modern word for natural selection. Natural selection is the modern word for natural selection, and it is not a law, it is a mechanism. Unless you'd like to state the Law of Natural Selection for me, please, as you see: laws generally have a formal statement, usually accompanied by a mathematical equation.Darkasassin96 said:
I will admit I have no evidence that Darwin proposed mutation along with natural selection, but he did use the phrase "descent with modification" which... oh crap, I do believe IS mutation. Hm.