Jump to content


Photo

Where Is The Observation In Evolutionary Science?


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

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

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!

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:30 AM

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.
  • MarkForbes likes this

#3 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:49 AM

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... Posted Image

#4 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:28 AM

Darwins finches.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:47 AM

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.

#6 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:34 AM

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

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... Posted Image


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.

#7 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:37 AM

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?

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

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....

#9 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:04 PM

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

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

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....

#11 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

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. .

#12 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:57 PM

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.

#13 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:59 PM

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.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:47 AM

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 :D

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users