dmiessler.com | grep understanding - Latest Comments in How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dawson — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:31:08 -0000

I almost forgot, look up google "proofs of macro evolution" and "zeus thibault" (he's the author), for some very good layouts of evidence for macroevolution.

And damn...i din't kno wyou had that many responses already >.<

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dawson — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:23:22 -0000

I actually came across a response for this from watching some creationist video showing instance of hybrids that I never conceived of...aside for the donkey+horse=mule instance it showed stuff I woulda thought to be photoshopped, like a lion tiger mix.

Thing is the speaker conceded that most of all these instances produce infertile offspring. Think about that.... the genetic dissimilarity makes it harder for them to interbreed.

The thing about micro-evolution and macro-evolution, is that macro-evolution is just more of the same....more micro-evolution.

Why would it stop?

So...as micro-evolution occurs between diverging (lets avoid the word species here) "populations" their genetic dissimilarity of course increases (basically a redundant statement there, right?).

And this, by a creationist speakers own admission, causes less and less ability to interbreed. So, I would ask your friend, isn't at least conceivable that this genetic dissimilarity would simply continue until interbreeding of the two populations became altogether impossible?

And, after that, I personally am left with the persistent thought that "Well dogs and cats are surely considered by all to be different species... yet what really makes one altogether uniquely different from the other? Couldn't I imagine by a stretching and mushing of bones to turn one into the other? Are they all that fundamentally different?"

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Mike — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:38:51 -0000

The way I often contend with people that try to take you out of your expertise in science and then say, "therefore, you don't understand such and such and have to call a belief." is by bringing up the point that science is set up to 'reward' amazing finds and neat things about nature in general.

The way I see it, even if I don't understand the finer points of macroevolution (in your case) or whatever other point there are plenty of biologists out there that actually do.

So if scientist 1 finds a very good way to disprove macroevolution (a note on form: the greater the claim, 'I can disprove evolution', the greater the evidence needs to be) and scientists 2, 3, 4, n find that to their dismay he/she is write, well, what happens? Scientist 1 wins a nobel prize, gets a higher salary, gets to do research he hasn't had finding for etc.

Point being, unless there is some conspiracy out there trying to keep the theory of evolution alive through lying and coverups, it is probably safe to say that you are in good (reasonable) hands when backing them up.

Mike

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:31:13 -0000

Thanks for the comments, Bob.

I encourage you to check out these two videos if you don't think there is proof of macroevolution. The science is actually very well established, with many, many examples of transitional forms available for study.

http://dmiessler.com/blog/t...

Cheers,

-Daniel

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Bob Wilson — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:26:58 -0000

The amazing thing is that there is no proof of macroevolution. I was an atheist who mocked Christians and their anti-scientific beliefs. I graduated from a college-prep high school at the age of15 but dropped out of college in my 2nd year because I could find no meaning to our existence. A year later I was challenged in my beliefs and like you discovered that I had no real foundation. The eveidence for a Creator God was compelling. And for the last 30+ years have had a keen interest in the debate. A few years ago I revisited the issue in earnest as I prepared for some lectures. In my research I was stunned at the lack of not only evidence for macro-evolution, but even the dearth of ideas on how inorganic could "evolve" into replicating life. I came to the same conclusions as Ben Stein does in his expose "Expelled". It is said that "No mainstream scientist believes in evolution" and this is true, because once you no longer belive evolution then you are no longer mainstream! I will soon have my BS in Computer Information Systems (I finally am completing my degree - plan to attend Yale Divinty next, if possible) and that brings me to a fundamental problem with macroevolution - the theory presents no real mechanism for the formation of new information - mutations lose information. Hope this helps. Your candor is refreshing. God Bless! PS: thanks for your tutorial!

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:33:04 -0000

Ali, I can tell you how NOT to explain it, and that's with something even more complex that in turn requires another explanation.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Ali — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:23:53 -0000

Well, I have not read ALL of these comments because that would waste my time. But for all you evolutionists arguing about Christianity, I have one simple question, If the whole world started out as little eloctrons and neutrons, that eventually turned into molecules, that turned into cells, that tuurned into somthing else, then somthing else, and eventually humans, how do you explain where the first substances came from?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

B-Dog — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:39:31 -0000

Is it strange that most Christians don't agree entirely on what the Bible means? I mean, with more that 2000 denominations in the US alone, there's pretty strong evidence that "God's Book" hardly lives up to the hype. I mean, verse after verse of contradictions (there are entire websites dedicated to exposing them), ridiculous stories that could never have happened, God's really sadistic character ... How can you trust it?

But on to the (painfully clear) evidence: a fossil record showing less complex species at the lower levels, and the most complex at the top. I mean, I've heard some arguments to explain this (a worldwide flood, which left no geological evidence whatsoever), but they all lack something... what was that word? EVIDENCE!!! You cling so mindlessly to your beliefs that you can't see the solution even with mountains of evidence ranging from the strata to reliable dating methods to increasing complexity of species to observable micro-evolution. It's a kind of zombiism, I think. "Must believe, must believe".

There are many Christians, to be fair, who are on board with reality at least in this respect. They have seen the evidence (yes, there are Christians who are scientists), and know it as the fact that it is. They've tried to develop explanations to support God's role in this whole evolution thing, but at least they are seeing evolution for what it is: truth.

For those still clinging to the literal 6 days dealio, and that laughable tally of ages in Judges to provide us with a less-than-10,000-year-old earth, your God must be a deceiver. He went and laid all the fossil evidence, made the earth appear to be billions of years old, made a universe that mathematically appears to be nearly 14 billion years old and that is, for all practical purposes empty, and put our tiny little planet in an unremarkable place in it. The reason so many scientist reject your theories is that they align with observable facts about our universe. Genesis is a fraud.

@Lee: Dude, what the hell?
@Nick: Dude, what the hell? You are so smug about your fairly tale world. Oh, and while you are busy laughing at the painfully obvious fact of evolution, you are quite rudely NOT providing any useful evidence whatsoever to back up your (silly) claims. Do you know why you offer no proof? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE! There are hacks who tell half truths, who focus on the growing pains that the fact of evolution has gone through, but they don't actually weigh the legitimate evidence in any scientific way. They just smugly dismiss compelling evidence by saying, "it's not true". They are like you.

Others, like Carl Baugh, offer wild theories based on nothing more than the Bible and imagination: "There was a pink crystalline structure surrounding Earth's biosphere, and that's where all the water from the flood came from. This protective shell allowed humans to live much longer lives, and when it fell, so did the age of man." Come on! This are wildly speculative claims put out with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF! Your claims that, for example, Moses did what he did, are equally wild and unsubstantiated in every possible way.

@All Believers
You can keep your religion (to yourself). But keep your nose out of scientific discussions until you can bring at least 1/10th the body of evidence that evolution has brought to the table. This includes predictions that, when tested, are confirmed. Hell, just find a single set of fossils that is inexplicably out of place in the strata. That should get those crazy evolutionists scurrying to your church doors in an act of mass repentance. But until then, remember: it's called "faith" because you don't need evidence. You just have to "feel" like it's right.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Norm — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:07:15 -0000

Isiah,

Thank you so much for your suggestion. While it's been helpful to have read books by Gould, Johansen, Darwin, Leaky and Asimov, I can't seem to get any explanation as to "how" rather just a quick history of blue-green algae then suddenly we seem to have an archaeopteris, and maybe a bit about how friendly and helpful abscisic acid can be.

Did the algae creep onto land somehow? Did the waters recede leaving the algae with little choice to either change or be dried up? How and why did wood fiber evolve? How and why did fruit evolve? What is the benefit of the apple to the apple tree? Why all the delicious pulp? Why not just a seed to continue the species?

Other than some very smart people saying "a lot of beneficial accidents over millions of years" there hasn't yet been a satisfying answer.

I eagerly await the title of your book that I should read. Thank you.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Andrew — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:32:49 -0000

Your friend Rick seems pretty cool considering he's willing to hear both sides, the majority in his situation are not. If Rick already sees the logic behind micro-evolution it probably won't be too long before he sees the continuation of that logic into 'macro-evolution'.

Sometimes you have to flip the argument. If he's asking you to prove you're right, shouldn't he have to do the same? For example: God is perfect according to the book that creationism is based on. Given this fact, wouldn't God's creations be perfect? Every living thing is made up of cells and cells are definitely imperfect, their genetic mutation is the foundation of micro-evolution (which Rick accepts). The perfect designer (God is perfect so he's a perfect designer) wouldn't choose such a faulty building block for his creations.

As far as changing 'kinds' go, the leggless lizard is a good example. Look at a legless lizard and compare it to a lizard, it's pretty obvious they're not the same kind of animal even though they share common ancestry. Creationists might argue that a legless lizard is 'devolved' but there is no back or forward in evolution, there is only what is more suitable to the continuation of the species. If an eathquake caused a group of thousands of lizards to fall into a pit and the only food source in the pit is in cracks in the walls, the lizards with the smallest legs are going to have more chance of surviving because they can get deeper into the cracks. If they're stuck there for a few thousand years you can see how evolving to have no actual legs would benefit the species and actually cause a new species. The lizards with the smaller legs survive to reproduce more often, making the genes for smaller limbs more commen. In the same pit there might also be another new species of lizards arise that is more adapted to climbing, allowing it to escape the pit and get to other food sources.

Having to attempt to prove this to someone caused me to brush up on my knowledge of genetics and evolution and I'm better off for it. I think you and your friend will be too wether he ends up accepting evolution or not.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

isiah — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:09:58 -0000

NORM, read a book.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Norm — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:42:32 -0000

How about plants and trees? How the heck did they evolve? Where did they come from?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:14:57 -0000

Cool Brian, thanks for the follow-up. I like your site, by the way. :)

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Brian — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:57:24 -0000

Daniel,

You are right about macroevolution. But then I'm a physicist, so evolution reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics :-)

Seriously though, if you are citing talk origins to counter me, then all I can say is read through their cite. They are an excellent source on evolution, and they document it well. They do it better than I ever could.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

James — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:52:44 -0000

@ Lee

You're right, the fact that Hovind's in jail doesn't invalidate his arguments. The fact that his arguments are wrong, have been throughly discredited, and are considered embarrassing by a lot of other creationists invalidates his arguments.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Lee — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:31:21 -0000

Paul was in jail for about 7 years... where he wrote some of the New testament. Hovind being in jail doesn't make him any less of a reputable source.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:08:20 -0000

Well these comments have simply been excellent. Thanks for all the input; it's really helpful. I'll be going through and re-reading at least once.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

JBL — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:24:49 -0000

@ Comment by Lee — 8/29/2007 @ 7:19 am

Dude, Hovind is in jail. And, it's not for religious persecution. It is for tax evasion. Please don't go around quoting "fallen" leaders. It just makes Christians look retarded.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Lee — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:19:00 -0000

if you are going to base your beliefs on which theory has more evidence, then it should be noted that all the evidence for evolution has been proven wrong or fabricated. From the artists interpretations of zygotes to peppered moths to pangea to cromagna man to the geologic column (where the fossils date the rock layers and the rock layers date the fossils). The premise of evolution is that new information can be added to a genome. This has never been observed in any instance! Any college biology prof could tell you that. Even mutations, again is a loss of information. Dr Hovind has a standing offer for half a million dollars for anyone who can show him evolution. he has had some attempt, but its never been proven.

If evolution is true, and a species needs certain attributes and features to survive in an environment, then how does the species survive before it "evolves" these characteristics? the Australian mallee fowl builds a huge nest, the female lays one egg in the nest which must maintain 33 degrees C for the chick to hatch, 2 or 3 degrees off and the chick dies. Why do we still have mallee fowl? And there are thousands of examples like this across the animal kingdom.
Comets lose their tails after a few thousand years. If evolution is true, why do we still have comets? Not all the planets in our solar system are spinning the same rotation, some are going "backwards". if everything came from a big bang, then (according to the law of conservation of angular momentum) all the planets should be spinning the same way. Where did matter come from? How did the time/space/matter continuum come into existence (since it would have to be instantaneously)? How did the Colorado river supposedly carve grand canyon when it does not enter the canyon at the canyons highest altitude? rivers do not flow uphill.
I don't think God created the world pre-aged as he did Adam. I believe he has let it age enough to provide us with sufficient evidence against evolution. Thus the reason for a flood, more evidence left behind.

To me it seems all creation screams out against evolution. All these evolutionary principles i learned or picked up throughout childhood have not measured up to science and reason. Some people choose to believe in evolution until the bible is proven right, i have choose to believe in the bible until it is proven wrong.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

JBL — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:08:27 -0000

@aletoledo — 8/28/2007 @ 10:47 am

"wow, thats quite a claim! You would have thought these experience would have been better documented by religious authorities."

They have been documented. The Bible is not the only text that describes spiritual experiences of individuals.

"could you elaborate on these experiences? did you catch any of it on film?"

Catch any of it on film???
I think you have misunderstood.

The original comment I was responding to was this....

elpres wrote: """So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have *experienced* or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it, while the latter rely on written or spoken opinions of other people"""

elpres was saying that he could experience and check out for himself, but a man of faith could not experience for himself.

Maybe I misunderstood his comments, but I have in fact experienced God personally in numerous ways. elpres is not the only one with experiences. People of faith also make up their own minds from their personal experiences.

-----

@elpres — 8/28/2007 @ 10:45 pm

(BTW, I never said that I believed in a 6 (literal or 24 hour) day creation scenario. Why have you assumed this?)

I would be glad to give a little more detail about my experiences. But, my stories will not be too different from many stories in the Bible (David's psalms, Job's questioning, John's revalation, the Ethiopian eunuch). If you have not been satisfied with these, I'm sure you be no further impressed with my stories. The Bible is not a scientific text. It is a story book. It explains the life and times of the people who experience God personally. There are still plenty of people who share in this common experience.

Originally, you seemed to be talking about personal experience.
If you were meaning to discuss material (physical) proof of communication with God, then I apologize; I completely misunderstood.

I have no different proof of any creation event than you have.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

elpres — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:45:11 -0000

@ Rick:

“I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief.”

Inherent beliefs tend to be somewhat subjective. I dare say that our inherent belief is that the Sun rotates around the Earth. It took careful observations of the visible paths of the other planets done by Copernicus to figure that out. The man used science to disprove that inherent belief.

Or how about optical illusions? They are nothing more than hacks to turn our brain's "inherent beliefs" against itself. There's even a whole profession based on that, they are called "illusionists" or "magicians" (and the bible advises to inflict lethal violence upon them, or at least promises that they will burn in hell).

@ JBL:

What aletoledo said (comment #61), and how do you know, that whatever "believers experience" to be god was in any way involved in the creation of the universe or anything else that god is attributed with? Does it introduce itself during the first meeting: “Hello there, I'm God and you know me from ‘How to create a Universe in seven days’ and ‘How to flush your flawed creation down the toilet with a mighty deluge’.”? Sorry if this sounds silly or bashing, but when you make statements about experiencing "The Almighty Creator" first hand, you should at least give a little more detail of why do think it is what you think it is and why do you think all other possible explanations do not apply.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Lucifer Cain — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:20:38 -0000

After reading the comments, noone seems to have a good answer.

I feel for you too dude. I think I'm going thru a "crisis of faith" in evolution too. The damn creationists/IDists are starting to get to me. I'm starting to think evolution is a belief as well. Just a belief with proof/evidence I like.

But at least, it's a useful belief. Because here's the thing, at least for me. Even if you can't understand the nature of a theory, but the theory has predictable results, then it's still a useful theory. We may not understand the complete mechanics of the theory and consequently cannot describe the theory well. But if the theory WORKS, then complete understanding may not be relevant for some purposes. Myself, I'd leave complete understanding to the pure science researchers. I want applied science!

So you counter his skepticism with the usefulness of evolution theory. We all know at least some of the predictive value of evolution theory - knowing how bacteria will adapt a resistance to antibiotics teaches us to rotate the antibiotic regimen while exploring methods to fight bacterial infection such as bacteriophages, radiotherapy and such. Knowing how mutation works allows us to develop genetically-modified grains with higher yields and greater disease-resistance.

Look up more such examples of the value of predicting "macro-evolution", to your taste. Meanwhile, question the predictive value of creationism/ID. What is the value to applied science and technology development in believing in creationism and ID? How does the "fact" that a grand plan exist allow us to develop science and technology? And how do we follow that grand plan if it did? How is that grand plan revealed?

He may counter that if we listen to the gods and follow their direction, then we can develop the technologies we need (if any). At this point it becomes a whole new kind of discussion.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

arikb — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:19:58 -0000

@elpres

"For a rational human, that’s proof enough"

There it is. This sentence encapsulates your belief in the ability to derive a proof based on an experiment, where in fact it is possible that you experiment with gravity again and get a different result. You can drop the apple on your head 999 times and you still cannot prove that it will fall on your head for the 1000th.

But, as you said, "a rational human" would create a hypothesis, and claim that the hypothesis has proven to be right, when in fact it is only shown to be right 999 times. This is all you know and all you can claim as absolute truth. Which is also a fallacy because the only thing holding that truth is your memory which is fallible.

I'm sorry if it disappoints you, but you are, still, a believer.

One more point: You claim that 'They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted'. This is not the only way to come onto religion - what about people who come onto a specific religion later on in life, or, like me, switched religions? I switched from moderate Jewish deism to a much less mild Atheism. I did not hear about Atheism as a child, it's a choice I made when I was late in my teens. It's a pretty difficult belief system to come to terms with, and it was by choice, after experiencing Agnosticism for a while and not liking it one bit.

Take care,

-- Arik

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:27:40 -0000

Brian said:

Macroevolution is really a creationist/ID definition, meaning to evolve from one "kind" to another "kind".

Uh, you're not the first one to say that in this thread, but it's untrue. Micro is evolution below the species level, and macro is at or above the species level. These are REAL terms used extensively by the scientific community.

http://www.talkorigins.org/...

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Brian — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:04:35 -0000

Although several have made much the same points, probably better than I can, but here is my two cents.

Daniel, the reason you probably have difficulty with macroevolution vs. microevolution is that they really are one and the same. If you understand the concept of microevolution, then you understand evolution. Macroevolution is really a creationist/ID definition, meaning to evolve from one "kind" to another "kind". Biologists talk of speciation, which is a much more precise term. Speciation has been reproduced in the lab (such as the appearance of the "nylon bug"), but creationist/ID proponents reject this as an example, because both species are the same "kind" of creature. This infuriates biologists, because "kind" is always vague and arbitrary. HOWEVER! the important thing to keep in mind is that both "kind" and "species" are simply human definitions. We categorize living things into different groups, but they are simply labels we give to things. We can say "Dog, Dog, Dog", or we can say "Poodle, Coyote, Fox" and they are just man-made labels. The important thing to keep in mind is that evolution doesn't care what labels we give living things. Life evolves. Slowly and over time. The single mutation that signals the appearance of the nylon bug is no different than any other single mutation.

That being said, if Rick accepts microevolution but not macroevolution, then he must be able to cite a clear mechanism which limits variation to within kind. This means there must be a clear genetic mechanism acting as a limiting factor. You could point out that in all the creationist/ID sites this is NEVER addressed. (This is because no such mechanism has ever been observed. Quite the opposite, in fact.) Instead, the argument is that since Dogs and Cats can't interbreed, they could not have a common ancestor. But many creationist sites will consider horses and donkeys to be the same "kind", though they cannot generally produce fertile offspring.

You mentioned that Rick also believes in the young earth model. This barrier would have to be breached first. If the world is only 6000 years old, then there simply hasn't been time for evolution to produce the variety of life from a common ancestor. The first step I would recommend is tree rings. The oldest living bristle cone pines are more than 4,000 years old, and we can literally count tree rings, matching living specimens with older (dead) ones to go back 11,000 years. The literal, 6-day creation story is wrong.

You might also consider some religious arguments:

Even if one assumes the Bible to be inerrant, that is not equal to literal. Even an inerrant Bible is subject to fallible human interpretation. For example, the Church once used passages in the Bible to declare that the Earth did not move, and was the center of the Cosmos. Now that creationists accept the Earth really does move around the Sun, the same Biblical passages have been re-interpreted to be in agreement with science. One can also re-interpret passages to agree with both an old Earth, and evolution.

Others have mentioned Francis Collins, and I agree his book "The Language of God" would be an excellent place to start. For anyone who wants both science and God in His heaven, Collins makes a compelling case.

Good luck.

dmiessler.com | grep understanding - Latest Comments in How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

dmiessler.com | grep understanding - Latest Comments in How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?