Jump to content


Photo

What Besides Observation Has Been Used To 'prove' Evolution?


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

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:56 PM

I've posted another thread with the scientific method to try and get anyone here to plug in evolution into it, but no one has succeeded yet.

Is observation the only thing that supposedly proves evolution?

Are there any examples of anything in evolution that have been tested with experiment? If so, what are they? I would like to see the process.

Can someone please provide me one, just one, empirical scientific fact supporting the theory of evolution?

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

I've posted another thread with the scientific method to try and get anyone here to plug in evolution into it, but no one has succeeded yet. Is observation the only thing that supposedly proves evolution? Are there any examples of anything in evolution that have been tested with experiment? If so, what are they? I would like to see the process. Can someone please provide me one, just one, empirical scientific fact supporting the theory of evolution?


Technically no-one is or has ever observed evolution, its more like something is observed and then it is interpreted within the framework of the paradigm of evolution, this is why evolution appears to fit with everything because the person has chosen to view the world in an evolutionary mindset, hence evolution can be seen everywhere.

#3 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

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

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:12 PM

Technically no-one is or has ever observed evolution, its more like something is observed and then it is interpreted within the framework of the paradigm of evolution, this is why evolution appears to fit with everything because the person has chosen to view the world in an evolutionary mindset, hence evolution can be seen everywhere.


Hiya gilbo,

Ah, it appears! If it appears, it must be observed, and if it's observed, it's evolution. Thanks. Makes perfect sense. Posted Image

On a side note, no one ever challenged the data I found regarding the chromosome fusion... Posted Image

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2043 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:15 PM

Technically no-one is or has ever observed evolution, its more like something is observed and then it is interpreted within the framework of the paradigm of evolution, this is why evolution appears to fit with everything because the person has chosen to view the world in an evolutionary mindset, hence evolution can be seen everywhere.


Correct. But if our counterparts really wished to give evidence that evolution has occurred then let them show us that such things as this...

Posted Image

could or can 'evolve' into this...

Posted Image

and give us proof that such a change is genetically possible, then they just might have a case.

Of course, the usual response to this is mocking laughter..."flies didn't evolve into hummingbirds!" to which we reply, "We know. But it didn't evolve into anything else in the world of living organisms either. Neither did the fly evolve from any organism that scientists can demonstrate that is genetically possible.

You see...this:

Posted Image

...is not only possible but an observed change in the offspring that takes place between two species that are in the same family. A very good example of 'variation within the kind'.

But this...

Posted Image

...is not genetically possible because the organisms that produce such phenotype characteristics are not related.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:55 PM

Hiya gilbo, Ah, it appears! If it appears, it must be observed, and if it's observed, it's evolution. Thanks. Makes perfect sense. Posted Image On a side note, no one ever challenged the data I found regarding the chromosome fusion... Posted Image

No worries :)/> Yes I realised that, it happens all the time, whenever someone posts something against evolutionary ideas that cannot be denied its simply ignored and its "business as usual". Look around at at the threads that are really short since that is generally the reason why they are short. The conversation dies if no-one is there to reply to it.

You can "bump" the thread with a post asking for an evolutionist to comment.

#6 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:39 AM

I might just do the ol' bump to see what happens. Cheers. Posted Image

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

Correct. But if our counterparts really wished to give evidence that evolution has occurred then let them show us that such things as this... Posted Image could or can 'evolve' into this... Posted Image and give us proof that such a change is genetically possible, then they just might have a case. Of course, the usual response to this is mocking laughter..."flies didn't evolve into hummingbirds!" to which we reply, "We know. But it didn't evolve into anything else in the world of living organisms either. Neither did the fly evolve from any organism that scientists can demonstrate that is genetically possible. You see...this: Posted Image ...is not only possible but an observed change in the offspring that takes place between two species that are in the same family. A very good example of 'variation within the kind'. But this... Posted Image ...is not genetically possible because the organisms that produce such phenotype characteristics are not related.


Very true, I was chatting with a class mate late last year and he was saying that evolutionary change is only relegated to the type of animal that it is. In that a fly can become different flies but cannot become anything other than a fly... I pointed out that there would be no fly in the first place since if things don't change beyond their type then there would never be new types.

#8 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

Very true, I was chatting with a class mate late last year and he was saying that evolutionary change is only relegated to the type of animal that it is. In that a fly can become different flies but cannot become anything other than a fly... I pointed out that there would be no fly in the first place since if things don't change beyond their type then there would never be new types.


Sounds like he was a creationist, but just didn't realize it... Posted Image
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 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 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

Sounds like he was a creationist, but just didn't realize it... Posted Image


Yeah I know right lol :D

#10 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:16 AM

Very true, I was chatting with a class mate late last year and he was saying that evolutionary change is only relegated to the type of animal that it is. In that a fly can become different flies but cannot become anything other than a fly... I pointed out that there would be no fly in the first place since if things don't change beyond their type then there would never be new types.

I've got a question; of course the whole "dog giving birth to a cat" that creationists often ask for as evidence for evolution would actually contradict the theory of evolution, but let's leave that aside for a second... If we did observe a dog giving birth to a cat, would you then say it wasn't evolution because they were still carnivores ? Or mammals ?
If not, why not ?

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:50 AM

I've got a question; of course the whole "dog giving birth to a cat" that creationists often ask for as evidence for evolution would actually contradict the theory of evolution, but let's leave that aside for a second... If we did observe a dog giving birth to a cat, would you then say it wasn't evolution because they were still carnivores ? Or mammals ? If not, why not ?


Who has ever stated that claim? I'm not sure why you quote me and then bring it up when there is no relevance to the quote... Additionally how would you seem to presuppose what I would state or not state, are you a mind reader?

Lastly I prefer to not dabble in the realm of imagination and hypotheticals, if you wish to debate science do so on the grounds of reality

#12 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 December 2012 - 08:17 AM

I never said you'd asked for dogs giving birth to cats, I said it's something creationists commonly ask, which they do. And I never presupposed what you would or would not state, that's why I asked what you would say. As for why I was talking to you in particular, you're the one who was talking about the whole thing with flies. There is nothing irrelevant about the quote, it's all about how evolution proposes "new types" arise, but in order to talk about that I need to start somewhere, and where I start would depend on how you think evolution works, which is something people differ massively on which is why I asked questions.

I could do a different tack that isn't about hypotheticals, but it also requires knowing your answer to a question that different people have different answers to : do you think lions and tigers micro-evolved from a common ancestor ?

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

I never said you'd asked for dogs giving birth to cats, I said it's something creationists commonly ask, which they do. And I never presupposed what you would or would not state, that's why I asked what you would say. As for why I was talking to you in particular, you're the one who was talking about the whole thing with flies. There is nothing irrelevant about the quote, it's all about how evolution proposes "new types" arise, but in order to talk about that I need to start somewhere, and where I start would depend on how you think evolution works, which is something people differ massively on which is why I asked questions. I could do a different tack that isn't about hypotheticals, but it also requires knowing your answer to a question that different people have different answers to : do you think lions and tigers micro-evolved from a common ancestor ?


And I asked who has stated this "common claim", I've never heard it, claimed here or otherwise.

I was asking for the relevance of quoting me if you will go on about things which I never said, (I didn't say that you said I did, hence the first claim in your reply is based on a misinterpretation / miscomprehension)

I don't believe in evolution ergo there would be no concievable way in which I can think it can work, that is YOUR job, not mine. I don't ask you questions about God and such, do I?

Rather than play games, state the evidence if you cannot then admit you cannot

#14 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:11 PM

And I asked who has stated this "common claim", I've never heard it, claimed here or otherwise.

I don't think I've heard the question in its literal "dogs giving birth to cats" form here (though I certainly have in various other places which I don't keep a running list of for your pleasure) but the general "please show me X evolving into Y" with X and Y being organisms that according to the theory of evolution would never evolve into each other has certainly occurred on this forum. Such as, I don't know, in the post you were replying to in the first place. I don't think I remember you in particular asking that kind of question but as I said, it's completely irrelevant. My original post was a jumping-off question that anybody could answer, whether or not they customarily ask for evidence that flies could evolve into hummingbirds.

I was asking for the relevance of quoting me if you will go on about things which I never said, (I didn't say that you said I did, hence the first claim in your reply is based on a misinterpretation / miscomprehension) I don't believe in evolution ergo there would be no concievable way in which I can think it can work, that is YOUR job, not mine. I don't ask you questions about God and such, do I? Rather than play games, state the evidence if you cannot then admit you cannot

I am responding to your reported discussion with a classmate about flies, and about how if organisms can't change beyond their type then there would never be new types. I wish to explain how "new types" could arise according to the theory of evolution (whether or not one believes in it. The implications of a theory are the implications of a theory, regardless of whether the theory applies to reality or not). I started by asking ancillary questions so I could know where to start; different people would give very different answers to those questions and I would use different analogies and premises depending on those answers. As I explained in my previous post.

But given your determination to take offense instead of answering very simple preliminary questions this looks like a pointless excercise so forget about it.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:19 PM

1. I don't think I've heard the question in its literal "dogs giving birth to cats" form here (though I certainly have in various other places which I don't keep a running list of for your pleasure) but the general "please show me X evolving into Y" with X and Y being organisms that according to the theory of evolution would never evolve into each other has certainly occurred on this forum. Such as, I don't know, in the post you were replying to in the first place.

2. I don't think I remember you in particular asking that kind of question but as I said, it's completely irrelevant.

3. My original post was a jumping-off question that anybody could answer, whether or not they customarily ask for evidence that flies could evolve into hummingbirds. I am responding to your reported discussion with a classmate about flies, and about how if organisms can't change beyond their type then there would never be new types. I wish to explain how "new types" could arise according to the theory of evolution

4. (whether or not one believes in it. The implications of a theory are the implications of a theory, regardless of whether the theory applies to reality or not).

5. I started by asking ancillary questions so I could know where to start; different people would give very different answers to those questions and I would use different analogies and premises depending on those answers. As I explained in my previous post. But given your determination to take offense instead of answering very simple preliminary questions this looks like a pointless excercise so forget about it.



1. So then please don't claim "common" and such when no-one here makes that claim.. Perhaps say "I have heard this claim elsewhere......"

2. If you don't think the question

"Who has ever stated that claim?"

Is asking for who has stated that claim, then there is a problem

3. Then explain it, please do.

4. Pertaining to reality is a very important factor

5. No worries, I just don't want to get suckered into a game of words. Either you have evidence or you don't you don't need me to state anything.

#16 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:06 PM

1. So then please don't claim "common" and such when no-one here makes that claim.. Perhaps say "I have heard this claim elsewhere......"
2. If you don't think the question "Who has ever stated that claim?" Is asking for who has stated that claim, then there is a problem

I don't think you even understood what I am talking about. A hint is the fact you're talking about "this claim" when I'm not talking about a claim at all. If you want to continue complaining about this then re-read the previous posts and try and understand what it is I'm saying is common among creationists (and you guys aren't the only creationists in the world). But given this is a completely pointless tangent you might as well not.

3. Then explain it, please do.

As I said, I need your answer to either of the preliminary questions I asked because the form my explanation would take depends on how you answer said questions.

4. Pertaining to reality is a very important factor 5. No worries, I just don't want to get suckered into a game of words. Either you have evidence or you don't you don't need me to state anything.

You don't understand the issue do you. You and others are asking questions that rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution consists of. Evidence in that context is useless; it's like someone who doesn't understand what the theory of gravity says asking for evidence of heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones. This person doesn't need evidence, they need to understand what the theory of gravity consists of. Only once they understand that the theory of gravity predicts objects will fall with the same acceleration regardless of mass (neglecting air friction), and why, will evidence be at all useful to them. This is an issue of understanding a logical framework and its implications; evidence can only come into play once we understand what it is that evidence is supposed to support and not support and how.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:28 PM

I've got a question; of course the whole "dog giving birth to a cat" that creationists often ask for as evidence for evolution


This was the claim


Umm no, if you believe in evolution then you don't require mine or anyone else's answer on anything, all you're attempting to do is set up some form of trap. As I said if you have evidence then say it, if not then admit that you don't. Surely you believe in evolution now, before I have answered this question... Therefore if your evidence is based on my answer why would you believe in evolution before this evidence comes to light?

Care to demonstrate these "misunderstandings"? If you already cite they exist, then there is no need to answer further questions since if they already exist you can demonstrate them to us.

#18 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:59 PM

This was the claim Umm no, if you believe in evolution then you don't require mine or anyone else's answer on anything, all you're attempting to do is set up some form of trap.

LOL, paranoid much ? What trap is it exactly you think I'm setting here ?
It would be something if I were trying to prove you are wrong about something by catching you in a contradiction, but this isn't even close to the case here - I'm straight-up telling you you're wrong about how evolution is purported to work, and offering to explain how it actually does work. Once I've done that there would be no need for you to agree that evolution is true, you'd just be in a better position to argue against the theory as it actually is instead of what it isn't. In fact you wouldn't even need to agree that my explanation of how evolution works is correct, I'm just trying to see how well the approach I'm trying to take for the explanation works if at all.

As I said if you have evidence then say it, if not then admit that you don't. Surely you believe in evolution now, before I have answered this question... Therefore if your evidence is based on my answer why would you believe in evolution before this evidence comes to light? Care to demonstrate these "misunderstandings"? If you already cite they exist, then there is no need to answer further questions since if they already exist you can demonstrate them to us.

I want to know whether you think tigers and lions have a common ancestor or not because if you do then I'd use them as a simplified example of how one "type" can diversify into several while remaining its own class. This would also involve asking you how you think that micro-evolution happened, if you're thinking of a mechanism compatible with the theory of evolution or something completely different. In the latter case how I would proceed would depend on how you think tigers and lions micro-evolved; at that point I might find it more interesting to explore your ideas on that matter than explain how things would work according to the theory of evolution.
And if you don't think that tigers and lions have a common ancestor then I'd have to choose between explaining the process in the abstract (which would intrinsically be less compelling than talking about a process we both think actually happened) or finding something else.

That's why I need your answer to that question to proceed. No trap here. The explanation of how new types can arise while still belonging to their parent type is the same in any case and it's a matter of the theoretical framework on how things change according to the theory of evolution, the only question is how practical I can get with the examples illustrating the theory.

#19 Tirian

Tirian

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:12 AM

LOL, paranoid much ? What trap is it exactly you think I'm setting here ? It would be something if I were trying to prove you are wrong about something by catching you in a contradiction, but this isn't even close to the case here - I'm straight-up telling you you're wrong about how evolution is purported to work, and offering to explain how it actually does work. Once I've done that there would be no need for you to agree that evolution is true, you'd just be in a better position to argue against the theory as it actually is instead of what it isn't. In fact you wouldn't even need to agree that my explanation of how evolution works is correct, I'm just trying to see how well the approach I'm trying to take for the explanation works if at all. I want to know whether you think tigers and lions have a common ancestor or not because if you do then I'd use them as a simplified example of how one "type" can diversify into several while remaining its own class. This would also involve asking you how you think that micro-evolution happened, if you're thinking of a mechanism compatible with the theory of evolution or something completely different. In the latter case how I would proceed would depend on how you think tigers and lions micro-evolved; at that point I might find it more interesting to explore your ideas on that matter than explain how things would work according to the theory of evolution. And if you don't think that tigers and lions have a common ancestor then I'd have to choose between explaining the process in the abstract (which would intrinsically be less compelling than talking about a process we both think actually happened) or finding something else. That's why I need your answer to that question to proceed. No trap here. The explanation of how new types can arise while still belonging to their parent type is the same in any case and it's a matter of the theoretical framework on how things change according to the theory of evolution, the only question is how practical I can get with the examples illustrating the theory.


Don't you ask a very strange question here?
'Do you think tigers and lions have a common ancestor?'

Should we not rather classify them as being the same species, since lions and tigers may have offspring together (ligers). How can the same species have uncommon ancestors?

#20 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:51 AM

Don't you ask a very strange question here? 'Do you think tigers and lions have a common ancestor?' Should we not rather classify them as being the same species, since lions and tigers may have offspring together (ligers). How can the same species have uncommon ancestors?

You might classify lions and tigers as the same species but biologists don't - given there is a continuum between species and subspecies a more robust definition of "species" isn't "cannot ever ever ever hybridize" but "never or almost never hybridize in nature (i.e. have no or negligible gene flow between them)". Lions and tigers and the other members of that genus hardly ever hybridize outside of zoos and not all combination produce hybrids or fertile ones, so they're considered separate species by biologists IIRC.

Now given lions and tigers do hybridize and their hybrids can even be fertile I would expect people here to answer "yes" to the question but I couldn't really go forward unless I absolutely knew Gilbo would, hence the question. I'd be glad to discuss the same issue with you Tirian, if you agree with Gilbo that "if things don't change beyond their type then there would never be new types", and thus that if we say flies only give birth to flies it doesn't answer how flies appeared.

That said on further reflection I've realized there's an even better potential example I could use : said flies (order Diptera). If I understood your posts on the Microevolution thread correctly, Gilbo, you think all the differences between members of the order Diptera come down to variation, the kind microevolution can produce. Just to make sure, could you confirm you think it's plausible that all members of that order had a common ancestor ?

If so I'd also like to clarify how you think that micro-evolution happened - would you say it's plausible or likely that an ancestral, uniform population of flies gradually split off into different varieties, that split off into different sub-varieties and so on until we get the current distribution, or do you think that's not likely at all and that something completely different happened ?

In the former case that scenario resembles what would happen according to the theory of evolution enough that I'll move forward with using Diptera as an example of how new types could arise even though every individual belongs to its parent type according to said theory; in the latter case I might just go on a tangent and ask you more about how you think the diversification of Diptera happened because that would be more interesting to me at that point.

(For Tirian, if you don't think that all flies could have micro-evolved from a common ancestor then I'd be glad to use the lion/tiger example, though it's less good than that of the flies because it includes fewer levels. My question would be the same : when you picture lions and tigers micro-evolving from a common ancestor, do you think of an ancestral population of big cats (probably panther-like) that split off into different varieties of big cats that then gradually grew more different until you got tigers and lions, or are you picturing something completely different - in which case I'd be really interested in knowing what ?)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users