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]

[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?

Because I could give you my address and you could come observe me to verify I exist and that I am in fact human.

Where I can go observe, let's say a bacteria, give rise to a worm-like critter in the same way to verify evolution?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 51 by Goose]

You could give me an address sure but how do I know its you. You could blackmail the person at the address to pretend to be you. You can't prove to me that you are human.

[sfs]

Again an interpretation of the evidence through an evolutionary framework. Evidence which has caused some evolutionary scientists to claim Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Exactly. Genetics provides compelling evidence that a single tree of life is an oversimplification, and that the real evolutionary relationships are more complicated.

So, did you present this link because you agree with the conclusion (which means that you accept evolution), or because, uh, why exactly?

Evidence which, incidentally, can also be interpreted to support the idea of a common designer.

False. Opponents of evolution often say that they can interpret genetic evidence in a creationist framework, but they get awfully quiet when you try to pin them down on a specific explanation for any of a myriad of pieces of genetic evidence. They are actually completely unable to interpret genetics without evolution.

[sfs]

[Replying to post 1 by Goose]
We don't prove that evolution is a fact. We recognize that evolution (by which I mean common descent here) is overwhelmingly the best model for explaining and predicting a wide range of data. In the absence of any alternative explanation with any explanatory power, we tentatively conclude that common descent is a good model and very likely captures much of the real processes that produced the diversity of life.

[scourge99]

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.

You can verify that things fall, I agree. But you aren't explaining how you verified that gravitation is caused by the earth.

Please explain how you verified that gravitation is caused by the earth? Or are you skeptical about the theory of gravitation?

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?

The March of progress is an illustration. I think you misunderstand what it implies about evolution. In other words, there are a lot of incorrect things someone can think are implied by the illustration. For example, it would be incorrect to imply that evolution has some goal or intention. Or that organisms necessarily only evolve improvements (i.e., progress).

For instance, where can I observe humans evolving into anything other than humans in the same way I can observe my pen falling?

Humans reproduce far too slowly to observe any significant difference in a single lifetime. Same goes for continent movement, island formation by volcanoes, star formations, and other things which cannot be observed in a single lifetime. Do you propose that none of these things should be believed because there wasn't a person to watch them all happen from start to finish?

1) Do stars form from slow accretions of gases? Has someone watched it happen?
2) do continents move and drift (continental drift)? Has someone watched that happen?
3) do volcanoes sometimes form islands? Has someone watched that happen?

There are plenty more examples. Or do you reject all scientific findings that can't be observed in a lifetime?

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.

Only to people who reject inference based reasoning.

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 don't know what you mean by complex in the same way. I'm not aware of any official categories rating types of complexity.

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?

Yes. The only computers i know of are designed by humans. So the identification of something as a computer, which are only made by humans to my knowledge, necessitates that it was made by humans.

I don't know what a computer designed by aliens or a computer designed by a god would look like. So even if i encountered one, i wouldn't infer that god or aliens made it. All I could say is that I've never seen this object before and it doesn't look like anything I've seen before. I wouldn't even know it was a computer unless it did something or looked like something that resembled a human computer. In which case it would be rational to presume it's human made.

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.

No. Its an argument for an incompetent designer if you insist that it was intelligently designed.

If I designed a camera that made a big black patch in every picture, I would be deemed a poor camera designer. If I designed a tooth filling that gave most people mouth infections, I'd probably be deemed a poor dentist.

What's it say about a designer who makes so many serious flaws and errors in his designs?

[Star]

Because I could give you my address and you could come observe me to verify I exist and that I am in fact human.

How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination?

Where I can go observe, let's say a bacteria, give rise to a worm-like critter in the same way to verify evolution?

Bacteria evolve into "worm-like critters"? And quickly and frequently enough that people can go see this happening someplace?



It's almost as if we don't need scientists and all their complicated evidence, since their claims can be easily "proved" or "disproved" by just about anybody.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 1 by Goose]We recognize that evolution (by which I mean common descent here) is overwhelmingly the best model for explaining and predicting a wide range of data.

Perhaps you can explain in logical terms how a model which posits two entirely contradictory mechanisms (Phyletic Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium) for how the evolutionary process unfolds, and are allegedly occurring simultaneously, can be considered “overwhelmingly the best model�? It seems to me a model which relies upon a logical contradiction in terms is prima facie grounds for precluding it from being considered the best.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 57 by Goose]

Because scientific academia long ago got over evolution denial and now discusses at what rate it occurs, not whether or not it occurs.

We know it does occur.


Unless you think that the existence of two contradictory mechanisms for gravity (QLG + String Theory's Gravity) is grounds for saying gravity is a bad explanation.

[sfs]

Perhaps you can explain in logical terms how a model which posits two entirely contradictory mechanisms (Phyletic Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium) for how the evolutionary process unfolds, and are allegedly occurring simultaneously, can be considered “overwhelmingly the best model�?

It seems to me a model which relies upon a logical contradiction in terms is prima facie grounds for precluding it from being considered the best.

I can't explain in logical terms your statement, since it's false. Neither phyletic gradualism nor punctuated equilibrium is "posited" as part of common descent. Both have been hypothesized as modes of common descent. Both clearly occur; the debate within biology is over which one occurs more often.

How you translate that situation into a logical contradiction I have no idea. It's like arguing that "precipitation theory" relies on a logical contradiction since it posits two contradictory mechanisms, snow and rain. You realize that's a dumb argument, right?

[sfs]

[Replying to post 57 by Goose]
Since Goose brings up Punc Eq, though, we can engage in a learning exercise. Here's some of the data used to argue in favor of Punc Eq:



It shows the mean thoracic width of an Antarctic radiolarian as a function of depth in the fossil record. A hard core Punq Eq-ist will argue that these data show two or three periods of stasis punctuated by rapid change, while a phyletic gradualist will note that, even though the rate of change varies, it's still gradual. Pretty shocking logical contradiction, right?

Here's the point of the exercise, though: what's the creationist interpretation of this pattern of change? What happened, and why?