[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
The evidence for evolution includes massive numbers of documented observations of consistent patterns of anatomical relationships among living organisms; later, independently made patterns of observations of biochemical relationships between living organisms (DNA, proteins) which overwhelmingly confirm the observations of gross anatomy; observations of the geographical distribution of living things (marsupials in Australia; Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos); many discoveries of fossil evidence of extinct related and transitional forms; the existence of such oddities of design as the “Panda’s thumb” or air-breathing yet fully aquatic mammals; the observation that living things very frequently behave in ways that are (to us) amoral, bizarre, or repulsive, but which are logical strategies for maximizing reproductive success in a given ecological niche; observations of adaptation through natural selection taking place right in front of us (such as the development of resistance to antibiotics by bacteria); and numerous observations of actual speciation.
So, in short, no.
[/QUOTE]
Could it be that all the consistent patterns of anatomical relationships are due to having been designed by the same Designer? Man designed Fords and Ferraris, to use a stupid analogy. Man also designed a lot of other stuff with similar relationships, but don’t expect your Ford to evolve into a Ferrari. (Nor your toaster into a TV.) It would take much more faith to believe the “transitional” hypothesis connected to variation within species (which, by the way, is what happens when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics) proves that one species can change into another, (This has never been observed, only imagined.) than it would take to believe that God created all this stuff. Perhaps evolution is a new religion. It was most certainly created/designed by man. (Forgive the run-on sentence.) (Oh, I just realized that a radio is a transitional form. Learn something new every day.)
Just trying to impart what little wisdom I can before my trial subscription runs out. Barring an absolute miracle, I couldn’t go on like this. I can hear the sighs of relief from ExapnoMapcase and BrainBlutton. Oops. Darn these computers. They can’t spel very well. To mini misteaks.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
A better worded question would be “Is there more evidence for Jesus than evolution”? The answer would be no. Ignoring human evolution, and the emotional respose it creates, look at other animals and plants. The farther you go back in time in geological formations the simpler the organisms. Dates can be determined by radioactive decay, annual patterns of layers of deposit, tree rings, magnetic orientation of igneus rock, etc. DNA evidence (random drift over time) supports the geologic record.
Evidence for Jesus has been summed up nicely by MEBuckner.
[/QUOTE]
Is it true that the “geologic column” only exists in textbooks? Is it consistant all over the earth? Do we date the fossils by the layer in which they are found, or the layer in which they are found by the types of fossils it contains? Does it seem like this is going around in circles? It must have come from the East>
The only explanation (other than evolution) for all the converging lines of evidence we see is an Intelligent Designer who for some inscrutable reason created the world in such a way so that it looks exactly like living things evolved, even though they didn’t really.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
The only explanation (other than evolution) for all the converging lines of evidence we see is an Intelligent Designer who for some inscrutable reason created the world in such a way so that it looks exactly like living things evolved, even though they didn’t really.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You were whooshed. I don’t know what you saw, exactly, but I guarantee there aren’t any genuine Roman wanted posters for Jesus. What you saw was almost certainly some kind of mock-up.
Let me ask you this. Was it written in English? Did it have the word “Wanted” on it in English? If so, then what does that tell you?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t even take a cynic to see through this mockery. But what is its intent?
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Could it be that all the consistent patterns of anatomical relationships are due to having been designed by the same Designer?
[/quote]
Speciation has not only been directly observed but is confirmed by genetic evidence such as retroviral genes . The commonality of retrogenes between two different species (such as humans and chimps) can only be explained by common descent.
If you want to pursue the canard that “microevolution” can occur eithout leading to speciation, you’ll have to explain what would stop it. If mutation and heridity are subjected to a sorting mechanism (such as Natural Selection) then speciation must occur eventually. It’s a rock rolling down a hill.
No. Religion implies faith. There is no faith involved with evolutionary theory.
So was religion.
Evolution was not “created” or “designed” it was OBSERVED. That species adapt overtime and turn into new species is a directly observed phenomenon, not a belief. Evolutionary THEORY is the (overwhelmingly confirmed) explanation for WHY it happens.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
BrainBlutton. Oops. Darn these computers. They can’t spel very well. To mini misteaks.
[/QUOTE]
Mocking another’s username is not only childish, it is a form of insult forbidden outside the Pit.
You are welcome to stick around, but you will need to follow the same rules as everyone else.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
It doesn’t even take a cynic to see through this mockery. But what is its intent?
[/QUOTE]
The intent of the alleged wanted poster or the intent of my question as to its language?
If you’re asking the former, I have no idea. Perhaps it had some satirical intent. Perhaps it was something else. I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter.
If you were asking the latter, my intent was to point out that nothing written in English could have any ancient Roman (or Palestinian) origin.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just like Voyager said, unless you define what you mean by evolution, we can’t even start.
[/quote]
I think he was more asking the skeptics: most of us all understand evolution to be the scientific definition of biological evolution.
:rolleyes:
The ark story is not only not supported by the evidence, it’s roundly contradicted by it. Dogs branched off from wolves tens of thousands of years before the literalistic genesis story implies the earth even existed, and they didn’t do it coming off an ark after a worldwide calamity.
There’s nothing preposterous about common descent: unless you grossly misunderstand what it is saying.
Well, of course, you can certainly make this claim, but the fact is that all of this is based on evidence of a sort which, as I said, is far far stronger than most of the sorts of evidence we are used to dealing with in everyday life. That’s because the evidence provides ample opportunity for self-checking and coverging in ways most factual claims just are not broad or long lasting enough to provide.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Definitely an apples and oranges kind of comparison. The evidence used to establish a historical event is different that the evidence used to support a scientific theory. It’s like asking is there more proof of Abraham Lincoln or gravity?
There’s sufficient evidence of the appropriate type to prove that Jesus existed as a historical person and that evolution exists as a scientific process. But I’d have to give evolution the nod for having “more” proof - as a scientific theory, the evidence supporting it is reproducible, so it’s essentially infinite. If you want more proof of evolution, you can conduct some experiments and produce more evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that you are talking about a very specific kind of “evolution” which is changes within a species, not changes from one species to another. There is no evidence for or chance of repeating or reproducing the latter. That requires a significant leap of faith.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Is it true that the “geologic column” only exists in textbooks?
[/quote]
No. There are many places on the earth where the column is “complete” but this isn’t particularly necessary anyway, because we have ways of conclusively piecing it all together even if no place had every possible layer.
Yes, if by consistent you mean that it all appears to fit into the same pattern of evidence and tell the same story of past history.
This is a common creationist myth. Yes, we CAN and sometimes DO use one to easily date the other as needed, but this is only because these relationships have ALREADY been proven to be so certain and constant that we can safely make such assumptions for the sake of expediency. Dating can always be tested directly, and generally is anyway. It just isn’t particularly pressing because, as I noted, the relationship is very reliable and consistent. Given that the only people who think this is questionable are generally against the entire premise of science and the idea of dating things anyway, it’s not much of a concern.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] Cecil on Jesus. I’m not sure I agree with the details of the column (Aren’t the mentions in Tacitus and Josephus widely considered later interpolations?) but the basic reasoning–that a fictional Jesus is difficult to reconcile with the rapid growth of his cult–seems sound to me.
Yeah, but John Frum did exist, after a fashion. There really were U.S. servicemen in the South Pacific during WW2. To me it sounds a bit like someone said “I’m John, from Chicago.”
[/QUOTE]
Kinda like Sam Ting, who ran Horst Svensens Chinese Laundry. He followed a tall blond guy through immigration, and when they aske him his name, he said…
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Is it true that the “geologic column” only exists in textbooks?
[/quote]
No.
Yes, although most columns are incomplete from various natural processes.
Both the layers and the fossils can be conclusively dated independently of each other but sometimes layers can be assigned an estimated age based on fossils. This is only a kind of “shorthand,” though. The dates are always confirmed by other methods.
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Keep in mind that you are talking about a very specific kind of “evolution” which is changes within a species, not changes from one species to another. There is no evidence for or chance of repeating or reproducing the latter. That requires a significant leap of faith.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve already been pointed at several examples of new species. Heck, the basic experiments on speciating fruit flies were not only pretty simple, but widely reproduced.
As DtC said, there is no faith here. It’s faith that is required to believe that there is some magical barrier that prevents speciation that no one has seen or observed.
And, more importantly, the evidence of speciation having happened and it in fact being a major force in the diversity of life is solid.
Most likely, you aren’t clear on what speciation is, or why it’s not so simple a concept as, for instance Biblical “kinds.”
[QUOTE=Apos]
Let me take a more contentious position: the evidence for evolution (common descent, withe the diving mechanism an evolutionary change) is stronger than the evidence for MOST historical events on a human scale prior to the advent of modern historical record (and maybe even after).
The reason is that the evidence for evolution is both vast, broad, and convergent in ways that mere historical events are not. Most historical events have a few primary sources, lots of secondary commentary, and some physical evidence. Now, that’s pretty good, often good enough to be very certain.
But that just doesn’t even scratch the surface of how powerful the evidence for evolution is. Here we’re dealing with vast vast reams of physical evidence that simply dwarf almost to nothing the amount of physical evidence we have, for, say some ancient battle: any one of which COULD totally contradict and throw things off, but never does. This evidence litterally spans the globe to every corner of the planet in the air and in the seas and under them: both spatially and in time, and it fits into countless different areas and histories. Even more powerful are the ways in which different lines of evidence all converge with each other that becomes less and less possible to write off as a coincidence even if you claim that the lines of evidence are themselves all flawed (why would erroneous reasoning all give even roughly the SAME erroneous conclusions, particularly on things like dates, much less fitting together in fine detail). You can take evidence from geology, fossils, and genetics and put it all together and it just all fits into a coherent whole, even in unexpected detail. There are so many different ways to come at the evidence, to think of the situation, and they all. just. fit.
Historical events can be very certain. But it’s rare that they have the power of multi-dimensional evidential convergence to the degree which the physical sciences have. It’s rare that they even come CLOSE.
[/QUOTE]
Incredible! I’d even go so far as to say, “UNBELIEVABLE!”
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Keep in mind that you are talking about a very specific kind of “evolution” which is changes within a species, not changes from one species to another. There is no evidence for or chance of repeating or reproducing the latter. That requires a significant leap of faith.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve already been corrected on this. Speciation has been directly observed and is also tremendously supported by a mountain of other evidence.
Shrug. From all your other comments, it seems that you have a very lot to learn about what evolution actually is and how scientists really go about studying it. You seem to have hold of a boatload of misconceptions and recycled creationists candards which color your understanding and lead your reasoning astray when judging this or that aspect of evolutionary theory.
