Jump to content


Photo

Darwins Evidence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#41 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:13 AM

It seems most of your post was taken from somewhere else. Please indicate a source. If it's not your work, please indicate who the author is.

#42 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:12 PM

pandion, people like you make my job as moderator easy. Trolling, equivocation, negative one liners, and plenty of ad hominem attacks all in your first post. It is obvious that you had no intention of following the rules when you clicked the accept button for the forum rules when signing up for an account here. I'm placing your post in the trash where it belongs. Goodbye. Posted Image

#43 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 08 October 2012 - 07:23 AM

To the original question:

It would help if you had actually read Darwin's book, instead of deriving your knowledge about what he said from Creationist websites. His book contains all the evidence available to Darwin at the time he wrote - the evidnece upon which he founded his theory. Almost none of the evidence was new; Darwin simply put three facts (observations) together. First, variation is everywhere in nature. This was very different than the prevailing philosophical position of the time, which went back to the Greeks, the idea of eidos - the "Ideal Type" of which each individual was an expression. To those holding that ideal, variation was minor and was simply to be ignored.

The second of Darwin's founding observations came largely from Malthus and his Essay on Population - the idea that population increases at a far greater rate than resources, and that resources were insufficient to support all members of the populations. Some individuals always do better than others, some worse. Darwin may also have been influenced by Carl Sprengle, who in 1828 published what later became known as Liebig's law of the Minimum, which stated that it is the resource in the shortest supply which determines what level of population can be sustained.

Finally, Darwin realized, begining with his own experiments with pigeons, that the differences, the variation, between individuals in a population was heritable, and could be passed down to subsequent generations.

Darwin presents all of the evidence for his three observations in the Origin of Species. He corresponded with scientists the world over, traveled a great deal, and amased a stunning volume of evidence. You want to know what evidence was available to Darwin? Read the book.

By the way, your insistence on experimental data is just silly, and simply shows that you don't understand much about the nature of science. Science has, broadly speaking, two distinct "flavors" - physical science, like chemistry, physics, etc., and the historical sciences, like cosmology, much of biology, etc. In the case of hard science, we can generate new data with which to test explanations. In the case of the historical sciences, we test the explanations with new observations. There is no difference between the two in terms of the logic employed.

So read The Origin of Species. It has all you have asked to know about the basis for Darwin's ideas. Don't accept the quote mining that so often characterizes claims about what Darwin said or thought - read his own words. Read all of them.

Rich

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:49 PM

1. It would help if you had actually read Darwin's book, instead of deriving your knowledge about what he said from Creationist websites.

2. His book contains all the evidence available to Darwin at the time he wrote - the evidnece upon which he founded his theory. Almost none of the evidence was new; Darwin simply put three facts (observations) together. First, variation is everywhere in nature. This was very different than the prevailing philosophical position of the time, which went back to the Greeks, the idea of eidos - the "Ideal Type" of which each individual was an expression. To those holding that ideal, variation was minor and was simply to be ignored.

3. The second of Darwin's founding observations came largely from Malthus and his Essay on Population - the idea that population increases at a far greater rate than resources, and that resources were insufficient to support all members of the populations.

4. Some individuals always do better than others, some worse. Darwin may also have been influenced by Carl Sprengle, who in 1828 published what later became known as Liebig's law of the Minimum, which stated that it is the resource in the shortest supply which determines what level of population can be sustained.

5. Finally, Darwin realized, begining with his own experiments with pigeons, that the differences, the variation, between individuals in a population was heritable, and could be passed down to subsequent generations.

6. Darwin presents all of the evidence for his three observations in the Origin of Species. He corresponded with scientists the world over, traveled a great deal, and amased a stunning volume of evidence. You want to know what evidence was available to Darwin? Read the book.

7. By the way, your insistence on experimental data is just silly, and simply shows that you don't understand much about the nature of science.

8. Science has, broadly speaking, two distinct "flavors" - physical science, like chemistry, physics, etc., and the historical sciences, like cosmology, much of biology, etc.

9. In the case of hard science, we can generate new data with which to test explanations. In the case of the historical sciences, we test the explanations with new observations. There is no difference between the two in terms of the logic employed.

10. So read The Origin of Species. It has all you have asked to know about the basis for Darwin's ideas. Don't accept the quote mining that so often characterizes claims about what Darwin said or thought - read his own words. Read all of them.

Rich


1. This is an unsupported claim and an attempt at a "poisoning the well" fallacy. You have no idea where I derived my information.

2. Observations are not experiments. The scientific method is clear on this, from observations a hypothesis can be derived which is then TESTED by empirical experimentation. If you do not have such experimentation then evolution doesn't follow the scientific method..... Which is a problem since evolution is claimed by evolutionists to fit within the scientific method, and "proves it as a fact".

3. This is an idea, not an observation. I highlighted your admission of this.

4. If some individuals are doing better then it can be assumed that some would be doing worse, there is no need to repeat in a tautological fashion. However such an observation follows the same as point 2, its not evidence it is merely an observation to support the hypothesis.

5. Did his pigeons become something other than a pigeon? Otherwise his "experiments" have not demonstrated common ancestry, and therefore his conclusion is not supported by such "evidence".

6. Again observations are not evidence as per the scientific method. It only supports the formation of the hypothesis. If this hypothesis is not empirically tested then it is not a "theory" despite Darwin automatically calling it one. Obviously this can be attributed to Darwins own lack of scientific standards since afterall he wasn't even a scientist, he had an education in Theology, (though initially Medicine but he dropped out).

7. Really.... Then I guess the scientific method is also "silly". I think you will find after a short google search that experimental data is the crux of the verification of science. Science back in the old days was exactly as you describe, where you can claim something and if it fits the observations then it is "supported", however we have now realised that such a method doesn't allow for verification of the cause given for the observation, it must merely be assumed that the cause given is the correct cause despite the potential that the cause stated is actually wrong. This is why the scientific method was created, and for you to claim such is "silly" is to attempt to throw our thinking back into those archaic ways.

Here is a diagram of the scientific method, I think its clear who has the proper understanding of ACTUAL science.

Posted Image

Do you see that from observations only a hypothesis is derived... Which should then be tested by experimentation, (experiments are empirical by definition).

8. You claim that Biology is a "historical science"?... Incorrect, the only historical part of "Biology" is evolution, take that out and you have an empirical science the same as Chemistry an Physics. Hence your claim that Biology is not empirical is simply not supported by what Biology is. I dare you to make that claim to a Biological Prof.

Microbiology is empirical, Medicine is empirical, Biochemistry is empirical (but very hard due to the small size and complexity of a cell), etc etc etc. Obviously your claim here derives from a misunderstanding about what Biology is, (how such a mistunderstanding could come about is unknown to me).

9. Data doesn't test explanations, since the data can merely be handwaved away as wrong if it doesn't fit. The only way you can test something is via an experiment, something which evolution is devoid of.

10. Um, I have been asking for empirical experiments, which you claim are silly and not a part of Biology, but now you claim that the book has all I have been asking for.... Do you see the contradiction here?
  • Salsa and Bonedigger like this

#45 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 08 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

You are simply unable to comprehend, it would seem. You confuse point after point after point, making it much more effort to refute you than it is worth, for you won't follow the evidence where it leads - otherwise you'd already accept evolution via natural selection. Just as a quick example, your # 5 above says:

"Did his pigeons become something other than a pigeon? Otherwise his "experiments" have not demonstrated common ancestry, and therefore his conclusion is not supported by such "evidence"."

Of course, my #5 didn't say anything about observing new species, or about common ancestry (although those claims can be, and are, made in other contexts). It said, to repeat, "Finally, Darwin realized, begining with his own experiments with pigeons, that the differences, the variation, between individuals in a population was heritable, and could be passed down to subsequent generations." It was about heritability and nothing more. That you want to switch the topic and jump ahead to common ancestry shows that you have an agenda, and that agenda was not in understanding upon what evidence Darwin based his theory. Please try to focus and stay on topic. Or are you simply using the typical creationist tactic of shot-gunning a dozen or more objections so that should one be picked to be answered, you could ignore it, and switch to another? It sure seems like that is what you are attempting to do here.

A simple question was asked in the OP. Where or what is the evidence upon which Darwin based his theory of evolution via Natural Selection? I answered that clearly and well. It really doesn't matter if you accept that evidence or not - the original question wasn't about the validty of the evidence - which of course is in no doubt whatsoever - but about where that evidence was. So there you have it. Perhaps complex arguments are not your forte. Perhaps you'd like to pick one single question and discuss it?

All your hand wringing and teeth gnashing about science, and experimentation, demonstrates an appaling lack of understanding of the philosophy of natural science. I'd suggest some reading.

#46 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:02 PM

You are simply unable to comprehend, it would seem. You confuse point after point after point, making it much more effort to refute you than it is worth, for you won't follow the evidence where it leads - otherwise you'd already accept evolution via natural selection. Just as a quick example, your # 5 above says:

"Did his pigeons become something other than a pigeon? Otherwise his "experiments" have not demonstrated common ancestry, and therefore his conclusion is not supported by such "evidence"."

Of course, my #5 didn't say anything about observing new species, or about common ancestry (although those claims can be, and are, made in other contexts). It said, to repeat, "Finally, Darwin realized, begining with his own experiments with pigeons, that the differences, the variation, between individuals in a population was heritable, and could be passed down to subsequent generations." It was about heritability and nothing more. That you want to switch the topic and jump ahead to common ancestry shows that you have an agenda, and that agenda was not in understanding upon what evidence Darwin based his theory. Please try to focus and stay on topic. Or are you simply using the typical creationist tactic of shot-gunning a dozen or more objections so that should one be picked to be answered, you could ignore it, and switch to another? It sure seems like that is what you are attempting to do here.

A simple question was asked in the OP. Where or what is the evidence upon which Darwin based his theory of evolution via Natural Selection? I answered that clearly and well. It really doesn't matter if you accept that evidence or not - the original question wasn't about the validty of the evidence - which of course is in no doubt whatsoever - but about where that evidence was. So there you have it. Perhaps complex arguments are not your forte. Perhaps you'd like to pick one single question and discuss it?

All your hand wringing and teeth gnashing about science, and experimentation, demonstrates an appaling lack of understanding of the philosophy of natural science. I'd suggest some reading.


I really want to give you an opportunity to present your case here and attempt to defend it, but if you don't drop the condescending attitude dripping from every post you will be bounced, and forced to find another e-place to perch. I know you are capable of discussing things without resorting to ad hominem attacks and that's all I ask.

*WARNING*: Ad hominem attacks are against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.

#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2012 - 11:54 PM

1. You are simply unable to comprehend, it would seem. You confuse point after point after point, making it much more effort to refute you than it is worth, for you won't follow the evidence where it leads - otherwise you'd already accept evolution via natural selection. Just as a quick example, your # 5 above says:

2. "Did his pigeons become something other than a pigeon? Otherwise his "experiments" have not demonstrated common ancestry, and therefore his conclusion is not supported by such "evidence"."

Of course, my #5 didn't say anything about observing new species, or about common ancestry (although those claims can be, and are, made in other contexts). It said, to repeat, "Finally, Darwin realized, begining with his own experiments with pigeons, that the differences, the variation, between individuals in a population was heritable, and could be passed down to subsequent generations."

3. It was about heritability and nothing more. That you want to switch the topic and jump ahead to common ancestry shows that you have an agenda, and that agenda was not in understanding upon what evidence Darwin based his theory. Please try to focus and stay on topic. Or are you simply using the typical creationist tactic of shot-gunning a dozen or more objections so that should one be picked to be answered, you could ignore it, and switch to another? It sure seems like that is what you are attempting to do here.

4. A simple question was asked in the OP. Where or what is the evidence upon which Darwin based his theory of evolution via Natural Selection?

5. I answered that clearly and well.

6. It really doesn't matter if you accept that evidence or not - the original question wasn't about the validty of the evidence - which of course is in no doubt whatsoever - but about where that evidence was. So there you have it. Perhaps complex arguments are not your forte. Perhaps you'd like to pick one single question and discuss it?

7. All your hand wringing and teeth gnashing about science, and experimentation, demonstrates an appaling lack of understanding of the philosophy of natural science. I'd suggest some reading.


1. You do realise that such an attack actually portrays that you're "scrapping the bottom of the barrel". Fight science with science, not un-supported claims about your opposition. If there are any points you feel I have "confused" please feel free to quote them, since like Dawkins says 'you shouldn't believe in anything unless you have evidence for it', (or something to that effect).

2. Perhaps it is you who cannot comprehend since what I said about the pigeons refers to the evolutionary claim of small changes within a species which is observed being used as "evidence" for Darwin's claim that species have common ancestry.

3. If that is the case, then why is it "evidence" of evolution, just because changes are heritable doesn't support the notion of species evolving from one another. It merely demonstrates that characteristics are heritable.... anything added to that is pure imagination.

4. Yes, however I believe the entire first post was about experimentation... Hence you're inability to address this or to skirt around it means that you are not responding to the OP in the proper sense. Here is the OP for veracity. Emphasis included so you don't miss it this time.

"Evolutionists the world over claim that evolution is true due to the evidence for it. I am wondering about Darwins initial evidence and how that was empirically experimented on to prove its veracity.

If no such experimentation occurred then on what basis was evolution first believed on?

Additionally what experimental verification occurs today, without requiring the assuming evolution as the cause? (I am asking for direct empirical evidence pertaining to evolution).




If no empirical verification exists then on what basis is evolution claimed to be a "fact" let alone scientific? "





5. Self gratification isn't a great way to promote oneself. You are entitled to your own opinion though.

6. I will repeat. Observations are not empirical tests. Darwin can observe a phenomena, Darwin can hypothesise a reason for said phenomena, however the observation alone doesn't mean that Darwin's reasoning is correct, therefore you're house of cards falls since all your so-called "evidence" is merely the observations that are used to create a hypothesis. Honestly look at the diagram of the scientific method, does it state a step like.

"make a possible reason, (hypothesis) and assume its true"

No it states that sufficient experimentation should be done to verify the claim made. This is where evolution falls since there is not one empirical experiment that can be performed to substantiate Darwin's claims of common descent.

If you disagree with this assertion then please bring forth Darwins empirical experimentation for his claims of evolutionary common descent.

7. Thanks Jay :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users