13 replies to this topic

[usafjay1976]

I'll use life as an example. An animal mates with another animal. A baby is born. It has been observed. Life comes from life. A type of science in a nut shell, no?

Please enlighten me what has been physically observed in evolution regarding life. Thanks!

[gilbo12345]

I'll use life as an example. An animal mates with another animal. A baby is born. It has been observed. Life comes from life. A type of science in a nut shell, no?

Please enlighten me what has been physically observed in evolution regarding life. Thanks!

You probably should have used "empirical evidence" for your title since the evolutionist can claim they "observe" similarities in fossils... Whilst this is an observation, the claim that one "evolved" from the other has no empirical basis from said observation. There can be no empirical tests done to the fossils to determine where the similarities came from, that is literally impossible since its a (proposed) past event.

[usafjay1976]

Good morning Gilbo! I agree with your statement. It's 4:45am here and my shift is wrapping up. Half asleep.

Since I can't seem to edit the title, Let me rephrase my question to 'Where is the empirical evidence in evolutionary science regarding my example in post #1'

Long one, I know...

[Portillo]

Darwins finches.

[gilbo12345]

Darwins finches.

Are you being serious or sarcastic lol

Darwins finches never became new species, they all can interbreed meaning under the evolutionists own definition of species they are the same species, (just different breeds, like dogs)

Additionally after the drought had passed the beak sizes changed back to normal meaning that change is only as lasting as the environmental pressure, indicating that it osscilates rather than "evolves" to new forms... This data is rarely heard of since it defies evolution.

[Calypsis4]

Good morning Gilbo! I agree with your statement. It's 4:45am here and my shift is wrapping up. Half asleep.

Since I can't seem to edit the title, Let me rephrase my question to 'Where is the empirical evidence in evolutionary science regarding my example in post #1'

Long one, I know...

Excellent question, usafjay...but the only 'answers' you will get from the opposition will be mealy-mouth "Evolution does not pertain to origins" nonsense or else, "We have never seen it but we know that it happened"...equal nonsense. At bottom line, natural Law means nothing to them least of all the Law of Biogenesis.

[MarkForbes]

You probably should have used "empirical evidence" for your title since the evolutionist can claim they "observe" similarities in fossils... Whilst this is an observation, the claim that one "evolved" from the other has no empirical basis from said observation. There can be no empirical tests done to the fossils to determine where the similarities came from, that is literally impossible since its a (proposed) past event.

They'll just claim that the similarities confirm their model. Mmmh what about commonalities between species that, according to them, aren't closely related at all?

[gilbo12345]

They'll just claim that the similarities confirm their model. Mmmh what about commonalities between species that, according to them, aren't closely related at all?

Like the bat and bird wings

Yeah they made an ad hoc hypothesis to fit that too....

[usafjay1976]

So...there is nothing in evolutionary science that has been observed? Nothing??

[gilbo12345]

So...there is nothing in evolutionary science that has been observed? Nothing??

Selection has been observed, differences within individuals are observed.

The main thing for evolutionists to realise is that its a huge leap to get from selection for minor benign traits (hair colour etc) to selection for large scale modification of the basic body plan of the species. The leap may seem "logical" to some however that isn't the point, science is based on hypothesis and hunches but it is confirmed on empirical experimentation. The evolutionist who claims that evolution is just the logical option is inadvertently admitting that there is no empirical basis for their belief so instead revert to one of opinion on what the truth should be. This is not a scientific stance to take, as opinions on what is "logical" change over time as new facts emerge as well as new interpretations of said facts. Sadly many people feel that this "logical" link is justified to be called science....

[MarkForbes]

Mutations over generations can be observed. But you have to puzzle the observations together and harmonize them with the paradigm to get to "Evolution", which is basically an extrapolation from a few things observable. .

[agnophilo123]

Speciation has been observed many times, as has various levels of adaptation in animals, plants, insects, bacteria, cancer cells, etc. There is even evidence of adaptation in humans, though of course observing multiple generations of humans is problematic for obvious reasons.

[agnophilo123]

Mutations over generations can be observed. But you have to puzzle the observations together and harmonize them with the paradigm to get to "Evolution", which is basically an extrapolation from a few things observable. .

You are arbitrarily defining "evolution" as speciation. But even with that arbitrary (and not quite correct) definition speciation can and has been observed. And then there's ring species which are a fun example of the middle ground between micro and macro evolution.

[gilbo12345]

Speciation has been observed many times, as has various levels of adaptation in animals, plants, insects, bacteria, cancer cells, etc. There is even evidence of adaptation in humans, though of course observing multiple generations of humans is problematic for obvious reasons.

Really please demonstrate some examples

I'm very interested to hear about the speciation of cancer to something other than a cancer cell.