Is Evolution a fact? Do we know it's true?

[Goose]

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

[Zzyzx]

.

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

It is generally the responsibility of the OP to define terms to be applied to the thread.

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

According to many Theists who do not study genetics evolution means "how life began" or "how humans came from apes" (or "you can't prove that it happens" – or "it happens a little bit but not a lot").

Evolution (using the biologist definition) occurs every time a microorganism becomes anti-biotic resistant – by genetic change. Is that in doubt? Is further evidence needed to overcome denial?

[Goose]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

According to many Theists who do not study genetics evolution means "how life began" or "how humans came from apes" (or "you can't prove that it happens" – or "it happens a little bit but not a lot").

I’m aware evolution says nothing about the origins of life. But as far humans descending from ape-like creatures -- I think that’s an evolutionary claim, is it not? The March of Progress

More to the point, I’m not sure what you are implying here. Are you implying that our descent from ape-like creatures can be proven? If so, can you provide that proof please? If not, what are you saying in regards to human evolution?

Evolution (using the biologist definition) occurs every time a microorganism becomes anti-biotic resistant – by genetic change. Is that in doubt? Is further evidence needed to overcome denial?

What’s doubted is that is that all life has a common ancestor –- as implied in the image above -- as though it was a fact.

[Divine Insight]

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

Yes, it is both a fact and it its true in the context if rational thought and rational investigation.

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

In what context? In the context of rational thought? Or in the context of outrageous and unwarranted philosophical speculations?

Let me first answer theses in the context of rational thought:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.

Evolution means that all things in the universe, both biological and non-biological objects have change due to natural processes to to become more complex over time. Biological evolution is no exception to this general behavior of the universes as a whole.

Biological evolution has become more complex than other forms of non-biological evolution because of the evolution of DNA which gives biological evolution a new mechanism of rapid change.

Define what is meant by fact in this context.

Facts are observations made of the physical universe that have been well-establish by having been made by many independent scientists repeatedly with precisely the same results. At it is these types of facts that have shown us the biological evolution itself must necessarily be a fact. We have indeed observed biological evolution repeatedly by looking at the facts that have reveal this truth to us.

Define what is meant by know in this context.

Again within the context of rational thought, we can rationally accept that we know something when everyone who share this reality with us reporting the precise same experiences, observations, and artifacts.

Define what is meant by true in this context.

Truth in the context of rational thought is that which cannot be avoided in the face of consistent and reliably repeated observations made by totally independent sciences. Each of whom would love nothing more than to be able to prove the other ones wrong. Being able to prove your fellow scientists wrong can lead to world fame, money and a Nobel Prize.

Now allow me to answer theses in the context of outrageous and unwarranted philosophical speculations:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.

In the context of outrageous philosophical speculations one could try to argue that "evolution" is just an unsubstantiated "theory". A guess made by people who have no rational reasons to make a guess. Or "evolution" could even be imagined to be a grand hoax held up by a collective scientific community whose sole purpose is to bash religious beliefs.

In short, there is no rational reason to reject the rational truth of evolution. But playing philosophical games one can pretend that evolution is not sound.

Define what is meant by fact in this context.

There are no such things as "facts" in outrageous philosophical speculation. What are held up as "facts" in this context are merely unsupportable guesses that the philosopher imaginations to be true and asked, "How can we know this isn't true?"

In cases like this there are no actual "facts" to work with. The "facts" being offered here are imaginary speculation created entirely within the mind of the philosopher. They have no correspondence to any physical reality, nor can they be said to be "observations". They truly are nothing more than unsupportable guesses.

So there are no facts, in purely speculative philosophical speculations.


Define what is meant by know in this context.

This is a typical question that outrageous speculative philosophers ask.

How can we know anything at all? Maybe we only just now popped into existence and all of historical evidence is nothing but a memory that has been constructed for us but never really happened.

And can we "know" that's not true?

Well, according to outrageous speculative philosophers we can't know. It may very well be true. All the evidence for evolution could have been created by some devious untrustworthy imagined magician.

We can't "know" that this might not be the "truth" of reality. But then again, we really have no reason to believe that it is the "truth" of reality. The only evidence we have for this ideal comes from the minds of outrageous speculative philosophers.

Define what is meant by true in this context.

In outrageous speculative philosophy "truth" is imagined to be the actual state of reality. Whatever it might be. And so they guess at outrageous speculative things that might possible be the actual state of reality, often times ignoring the physical world as potentially being nothing moire than an untrustworthy illusion.

~~~~~

In short, "rational truth" is that which matches up with known physical reality.

However, "truth" in outrageous speculative philosophy is anything a person can dream up as potentially being the actual state of reality even though they have no evidence to support that imagined state of affairs.

[Divine Insight]

What’s doubted is that is that all life has a common ancestor –- as implied in the image above -- as though it was a fact.

The "March of Progress" image is actually wrong. It depicts a single line of evolution from humans clear back to an early primate form. But that's not exactly how it worked. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that this isn't all there is to it.

Evolution does not work in a single-file line like that. It actually branches off like a tree.

Here is a very short video of Richard Dawkins' explaining the relationship between humans and the other great apes. This is where the rational evidence leads. There is no debate about this in the sciences. The only people who argue it are "creationists" who not only don't have a sound theory of their own, but they clearly aren't even well-educated on what is actually known in terms of the evidence for evolution.

[youtube][/youtube]

[DanieltheDragon]

Here is a thought exercise for you Goose.


Get a graph(paper or digital) and make a 10x10 square on this graph. Like a chess board fill in the squares red. Now stand back and observe the color for most people this will be red. Now once a minute for the next 50 minutes fill in 1 blank square with green. After every square you fill in stand back(about 6ft) and observe the color. You will notice that the red square will start changing. By the 50th minute if you stand back it will no longer appear as a red square to most people but instead will appear as a brown square.

the 10x10 square represents an organism the individual squares within it are the cells. The changing of red to green cells represents small changes in the DNA. The rate at which this occurs represents change over time.

We started with a red squared organism and ended with a brown squared organism.


THIS is how evolution works. Thats how one species becomes another.

If you look at the skeletal remains of our ancestors like Homo Heidelbergensis Homo Egaster Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. You will see how closely they resemble us Homo sapiens. Additionally you can see how little changes (red squares to green squares) add up. The further away(time) they are from us the less similar they are and the closer they are to us the more similar they are.

That is just like my graph analogy. If we start with a red square(homo Habilis) and end with a brown square(Homo Sapien) all the changes in between represent all the other types of Homo.

[Goose]

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.

Evolution means that all things in the universe, both biological and non-biological objects have change due to natural processes to to become more complex over time. Biological evolution is no exception to this general behavior of the universes as a whole.

Biological evolution has become more complex than other forms of non-biological evolution because of the evolution of DNA which gives biological evolution a new mechanism of rapid change.

Entirely circular definition. Not to mention there are countless examples that falsify this notion. My house, a non-biological object, has not changed due to natural process to become more complex. In fact, left on its own, it will eventually deteriorate into a pile of brick and lumber. The only way it will become more "complex" is if I, an intelligent agent, design it that way.

But let’s run with your definition for now and see where it takes us.

Define what is meant by fact in this context.

Facts are observations made of the physical universe that have been well-establish by having been made by many independent scientists repeatedly with precisely the same results. At it is these types of facts that have shown us the biological evolution itself must necessarily be a fact. We have indeed observed biological evolution repeatedly by looking at the facts that have reveal this truth to us.

But then by your own definition of “fact�, evolution (as you define it above) is not a fact, since it has never been observed that a simple single celled critter will give rise to a more complex human or even merely a worm-like critter for that matter.

Define what is meant by know in this context.

Again within the context of rational thought, we can rationally accept that we know something when everyone who share this reality with us reporting the precise same experiences, observations, and artifacts.

Argumentum ad populum. Not to mention not everyone accepts Darwinian evolution. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Define what is meant by true in this context.

Truth in the context of rational thought is that which cannot be avoided in the face of consistent and reliably repeated observations made by totally independent sciences. Each of whom would love nothing more than to be able to prove the other ones wrong. Being able to prove your fellow scientists wrong can lead to world fame, money and a Nobel Prize.

Great. So all you need to do is trot out all those consistent and reliably repeated observations of where, let’s say, a fish-like critter gave rise to a man. Heck, I'll even make easier for you. Just point out where I can observe a bacteria-like critter eventually giving rise to a worm-like critter.

In short, there is no rational reason to reject the rational truth of evolution. But playing philosophical games one can pretend that evolution is not sound.

Well since you claim evolution, as you’ve defined it above, is sound, let’s see that sound argument.

----

The "March of Progress" image is actually wrong.

Yes, I’m aware the March of Progress was not intended to be a complete and fully accurate depiction of evolution. I brought it out because Zzyzx seemed to be incorrectly implying the “ape to human� evolution was a creationist caricature, when in fact it is an evolutionist one.

[Goose]

Here is a thought exercise for you Goose.


Get a graph(paper or digital) and make a 10x10 square on this graph. Like a chess board fill in the squares red. Now stand back and observe the color for most people this will be red. Now once a minute for the next 50 minutes fill in 1 blank square with green. After every square you fill in stand back(about 6ft) and observe the color. You will notice that the red square will start changing. By the 50th minute if you stand back it will no longer appear as a red square to most people but instead will appear as a brown square.

the 10x10 square represents an organism the individual squares within it are the cells. The changing of red to green cells represents small changes in the DNA. The rate at which this occurs represents change over time.

We started with a red squared organism and ended with a brown squared organism.


THIS is how evolution works. Thats how one species becomes another.

Please don't tell me this all boils down to thought experiments.

If you look at the skeletal remains of our ancestors like Homo Heidelbergensis Homo Egaster Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. You will see how closely they resemble us Homo sapiens. Additionally you can see how little changes (red squares to green squares) add up. The further away(time) they are from us the less similar they are and the closer they are to us the more similar they are.

That is just like my graph analogy. If we start with a red square(homo Habilis) and end with a brown square(Homo Sapien) all the changes in between represent all the other types of Homo.

In short, you are inferring human evolution, not observing it, correct?

Something like...

If small change, then big change.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by Goose]

Yes, I’m aware the March of Progress was not intended to be a complete and fully accurate depiction of evolution. I brought it out because Zzyzx seemed to be incorrectly implying the “ape to human� evolution was a creationist caricature, when in fact it is an evolutionist one.

Ape to human is a creationist caricature because it is wrong. Humans are apes, its ape to ape, not ape to human


Quick definition of Ape.

Hair instead of fur
Finger nails instead of claws
Opposable thumbs
Higher brain to body size ratio– high level of intelligence
Prehensility– ability to grasp with fingers and/or toes
Padded digits with fingerprints
Binocular vision– both eyes focus on one object (depth perception)
Reduced olfactory sense and dependent on vision more than smell
Lack of a tail.


With this definition do you disagree that humans are apes? If not why?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 7 by Goose]

Yes, I’m aware the March of Progress was not intended to be a complete and fully accurate depiction of evolution. I brought it out because Zzyzx seemed to be incorrectly implying the “ape to human� evolution was a creationist caricature, when in fact it is an evolutionist one.

Ape to human is a creationist caricature because it is wrong. Humans are apes, its ape to ape, not ape to human


Quick definition of Ape.

Hair instead of fur
Finger nails instead of claws
Opposable thumbs
Higher brain to body size ratio– high level of intelligence
Prehensility– ability to grasp with fingers and/or toes
Padded digits with fingerprints
Binocular vision– both eyes focus on one object (depth perception)
Reduced olfactory sense and dependent on vision more than smell
Lack of a tail.


With this definition do you disagree that humans are apes? If not why?

Semantics. The March of Progress is an evolutionary depiction created by evolutionists is it not? It quite clearly depicts the evolution of an ape-like creature to man. Are you denying this?