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.

[Goose]

Yes, it's correct that we infer evolution based upon the evidence which is a very reasonable thing to do.

Well I’m glad to hear you finally concede evolution is an inference. That wasn’t so hard was it?

But originally you didn’t merely claim it was an inference did you? No, you didn’t. You claimed it was a fact known to be true. You went even further to claim Darwinian evolution was a “fact of life.� I asked you to define what you meant by “fact� and you stated, “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.�

I’ve repeatedly asked you provide the observable evidence (evidence you have still not provided by the way) that Darwinian evolution is a fact known to be true. So you have no basis to claim my demands are unreasonable since I’ve been working within YOUR definition of what constitutes a fact.

[scourge99]

Human evolution is inferred from the evidence just as gravitation from the sun or earth is inferred from the evidence. Among many other things.

If you doubt the ability to infer conclusions from the evidence then to be consistent you must doubt that the sun and earth are the cause of gravitation. And you must also doubt that the earth travels around the sun as opposed to the sun around the earth. Or did you come to these conclusions without inferring it from the evidence? Or perhaps you've never looked at the evidence and simply trusted authorities and experts on these matters?

But you see the inference of gravity can be verified through current observation. Where can I similarly verify human evolution through current observation?

you can right now retest and examine the fossils, dna, behavioral artifacts, and dating methods used to support human evolution. Granted, some evidence will be harder to examine and test first hand without proper credentials and expertise. Though, the Smithsonian has many artifacts on display for the public.

Let's turn this around. When we see something complex, such as a computer, we infer a designer correct?

Complexity does not infer design. A star or a snowflake is very complex. Ia every star and snowflake designed? So is the weather. We infer a designer by recognizing design patterns.

I recognize a computer is designed because i have seen computers built before and work in the industry. The flat and contoured surfaces on them are a common design pattern. If your computer looked like a boulder on the outside, I don't think anyone passing by would infer it was designed by humans.

Furthermore many things in nature, particularly biology are not designed well. The human eye for example, with its blind spot. Wisdom teeth that often cause infections and mouth problems are another example. There are many more examples in living things that are best explained by the unintelligent design of evolution. These mistakes, inefficiencies, and poor designs fit what we would expect from evolution. Because even a half brained intelligent designer could do a far superior job, let alone an omnipotent omniscient god.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 34 by Goose]

IF you want observable evidence the evolution occurs a few years ago NASA was studying the bone densities of astronauts. They took a DNA sample before they went to the space station and after the returned.

To much surprise the genes responsible for maintaining bone density and other related genes specifically turned off. The culprit was the change in gravity. Now this was just over a 6 month period but this demonstrates evolution in many ways

1. Change over time

2. Change in response to environmental pressures.

There you have irrevocable proof that evolution occurs.

Now if they had only evolved into flying bird-men we'd be off to the races.

[Star]

Now it's time to pony up and prove it.

Science can't prove anything, so how to you expect us to prove evolution to you?

Proof is for math, formal logic, and distilled beverages.

Science provides the best explanation. Having said this, evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know it happens.

If you can't prove evolution how do you know it happens?

If you can't prove humans exist, how do you know they do?

If you can't prove the ocean has water, how do you know it does?

If you can't prove the sun is hot, how do you know it is?

If you can't prove gravity, how do you know it's real?

As you can see, your point is invalid, because this failed logic can be applied to anything to the point of absurdity. Science deals with evidence, not proof. Proof is logic and math.

[Divine Insight]

But originally you didn’t merely claim it was an inference did you? No, you didn’t. You claimed it was a fact known to be true. You went even further to claim Darwinian evolution was a “fact of life.� I asked you to define what you meant by “fact� and you stated, “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.�

I’ve repeatedly asked you provide the observable evidence (evidence you have still not provided by the way) that Darwinian evolution is a fact known to be true. So you have no basis to claim my demands are unreasonable since I’ve been working within YOUR definition of what constitutes a fact.

And I have repeatedly told you that the observable evidence has already been presented by the scientific community. I have no need to redo what they have already done.

Evolution is a 'fact of life' just as much as gravity is a 'fact of life'.

You are free to accept them both, or deny them both.

Both are inferred by observation and experience.

You're not arguing against evolution. You're just playing silly philosophical games.

[Divine Insight]

Now it's time to pony up and prove it.

Science can't prove anything, so how to you expect us to prove evolution to you?

Proof is for math, formal logic, and distilled beverages.

Science provides the best explanation. Having said this, evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know it happens.

If you can't prove evolution how do you know it happens?

If you can't prove humans exist, how do you know they do?

If you can't prove the ocean has water, how do you know it does?

If you can't prove the sun is hot, how do you know it is?

If you can't prove gravity, how do you know it's real?

As you can see, your point is invalid, because this failed logic can be applied to anything to the point of absurdity. Science deals with evidence, not proof. Proof is logic and math.

Exactly. Everything we know is inferred from experience without exception.

The only place where "proofs" can be done is in mathematics and only then because mathematics is an axiomatic formalism that demands that certain unprovable axioms be accepted as true.

So evolution and Darwinism is indeed a fact of life just as gravity is a fact of life. The evidence from which these thing are inferred is overwhelming and there simply is not alternative rational conclusion to be had.

A designer hypothesis fails miserably. There is no evidence to infer it, and even if a designer did exist that designer would need to be pathetically inept. So hypothesizing a designer wouldn't infer "Intelligent Design" anyway, it would actually infer, "Stupid Design". So instead of a theory of ID we'd need a theory of SD.

[Goose]

you can right now retest and examine the fossils, dna, behavioral artifacts, and dating methods used to support human evolution. Granted, some evidence will be harder to examine and test first hand without proper credentials and expertise. Though, the Smithsonian has many artifacts on display for the public.

Gravitation is a phenomena which is currently acting and I can verify it simply by dropping an object and observing it fall to the ground. Where can I similarly verify human evolution in the sense of the March of Progress implies since the mechanisms of evolution are allegedly acting on the human population as well? For instance, where can I observe humans evolving into anything other than humans in the same way I can observe my pen falling? Assessing a fossil from the distant past or DNA data is not the same as actually observing the phenomena of human evolution actually occuring. Your gravitational analogy fails.

Complexity does not infer design. A star or a snowflake is very complex. Ia every star and snowflake designed? So is the weather. We infer a designer by recognizing design patterns.

But you agree that snowflake and weather patterns are not complex in the same way a computer or human is complex, yes?

I recognize a computer is designed because i have seen computers built before and work in the industry. The flat and contoured surfaces on them are a common design pattern. If your computer looked like a boulder on the outside, I don't think anyone passing by would infer it was designed by humans.

But if it were a computer on the inside it would still be a computer and designed yes? Or are you arguing there are as of yet unknown computers in boulders?

Furthermore many things in nature, particularly biology are not designed well. The human eye for example, with its blind spot. Wisdom teeth that often cause infections and mouth problems are another example. There are many more examples in living things that are best explained by the unintelligent design of evolution. These mistakes, inefficiencies, and poor designs fit what we would expect from evolution. Because even a half brained intelligent designer could do a far superior job, let alone an omnipotent omniscient god

An argument against a perfect designer, not a designer in itself.

[Zzyzx]

.

Now if they had only evolved into flying bird-men we'd be off to the races.

Moderator Comment

This post contributes nothing to the discussion and attempted humor or sarcasm (if that was intended) doesn't carry well.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goose]

Now it's time to pony up and prove it.

Science can't prove anything, so how to you expect us to prove evolution to you?

Proof is for math, formal logic, and distilled beverages.

Science provides the best explanation. Having said this, evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know it happens.

If you can't prove evolution how do you know it happens?

If you can't prove humans exist, how do you know they do?

I exist and I'm human. Therefore humans exist. Iron clad. Can you prove Darwinian evolution with the same certainty that I can prove humans exist?

If you can't prove the ocean has water, how do you know it does?

I can go observe it to verify.

If you can't prove the sun is hot, how do you know it is?

Fly a space craft there with instruments to verify the temperature.

If you can't prove gravity, how do you know it's real?

I don't know it's real. I believe it is.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by Goose]

You can't prove to me that your human. How do I know your not a hyper-dimensional transient computer mimicing a human online?

All I see from you is text on a screen how can your prove that you are nothing more than software?