Evidence For And Against Evolution

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.

Image


Thoughts?

.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #311

Post by Miles »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:49 pm
Data is only fact in relation to itself alone. It is a type of signifier. It may signifiy findings that our senses uncover. What it can't do, sans an interpretation, is provide support for any other fact besides itself, i.e. a factual conclusion (like evolution).

Just like, if we have evidence admitted in a court room. We may know, for instance, that the accused who killed a black man had a long history of racist behavior, that he had bought a gun a week prior to the killing, etc. We may bring that to bear on the verdict. But it may so happen that his alibi proves true, and renders all the other evidence irrelevant by that sole fact. Unless we can consistently and coherently put together all the facts in a type of argument or narrative that makes sense, the individual data points can't yield any sort of definitive conclusion. We may introduce bias of course, but that is not even data. That's when data appeals to us so strongly that we willfully jump the gun. This is what has happened with evolution in my view.

So, the picture still has nothing to do with evidence. Only the appearance of evidence, which isn't demonstrated in the least.

Have a good day.



.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #312

Post by Dimmesdale »

Miles wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:01 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:49 pm
Data is only fact in relation to itself alone. It is a type of signifier. It may signifiy findings that our senses uncover. What it can't do, sans an interpretation, is provide support for any other fact besides itself, i.e. a factual conclusion (like evolution).

Just like, if we have evidence admitted in a court room. We may know, for instance, that the accused who killed a black man had a long history of racist behavior, that he had bought a gun a week prior to the killing, etc. We may bring that to bear on the verdict. But it may so happen that his alibi proves true, and renders all the other evidence irrelevant by that sole fact. Unless we can consistently and coherently put together all the facts in a type of argument or narrative that makes sense, the individual data points can't yield any sort of definitive conclusion. We may introduce bias of course, but that is not even data. That's when data appeals to us so strongly that we willfully jump the gun. This is what has happened with evolution in my view.

So, the picture still has nothing to do with evidence. Only the appearance of evidence, which isn't demonstrated in the least.

Have a good day.



.
I should add also that in the courtroom case, it is at least justified to use the term "evidence" instead of mere "data points" because we have actually observed racists being killers. Evolution however has never been observed in any significant way (in my view), so it is far less than even that. It is, once more, jumping the gun. Radically so.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #313

Post by Diagoras »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:07 pm Unless we can consistently and coherently put together all the facts in a type of argument or narrative that makes sense, the individual data points can't yield any sort of definitive conclusion. We may introduce bias of course, but that is not even data. That's when data appeals to us so strongly that we willfully jump the gun. This is what has happened with evolution in my view.
<bolding mine>

Are you taking a position that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t make sense? That there isn’t a ‘narrative’?

Dimmesdale wrote:Evolution however has never been observed in any significant way (in my view), ...
Given that evolution is for the most part a very gradual process taking millions of years, not observing a ‘significant’ change doesn’t negate the theory at all. However, there are plenty of examples of evolution happening on timescales short enough to be observed directly. Some are the result of laboratory experiment (e.g. on bacteria and viruses) but other examples in nature can be found quite easily with a quick search. Here’s one chosen at random:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/643 ... y-evolving

Notice how the observed facts make sense and fit very well with the ToE narrative.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #314

Post by benchwarmer »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:49 pm So, the picture still has nothing to do with evidence. Only the appearance of evidence, which isn't demonstrated in the least.
The picture is just that. A representation of something. It is explaining all the various types of evidence available if one wishes to go find/observe it. Did you expect a pile of bones to pour out of this web page onto your desk for examination?

I'm pretty sure no one was implying the picture itself WAS the evidence. It simply demonstrates SOME of the types of evidence used to support the TOE. The picture also accurately reflects the Christian Creationist type of evidence. i.e. whatever is written (and interpreted) in the Bible.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #315

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:41 am [Replying to Kenisaw in post #302]
Pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but I just gotta say - There is no such thing as a selfless act.
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Love is never what you get. Only about what you give and what you are willing to sacrifice for the one you love. Have you never seen the end of Casablanca?

"Of All The Gin Joints In All The Towns In All The World, She Walks Into Mine."
One of the best movies ever made, in my opinion.

Every sacrifice made is done so in order to further the self, in some way. We could try a thought experiment, and see if anyone can come up with a truly selfless act.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #316

Post by Dimmesdale »

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:45 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:07 pm Unless we can consistently and coherently put together all the facts in a type of argument or narrative that makes sense, the individual data points can't yield any sort of definitive conclusion. We may introduce bias of course, but that is not even data. That's when data appeals to us so strongly that we willfully jump the gun. This is what has happened with evolution in my view.
<bolding mine>

Are you taking a position that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t make sense? That there isn’t a ‘narrative’?
There are plenty of false narratives. Plausibility does not equate to reality.
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:45 pmGiven that evolution is for the most part a very gradual process taking millions of years, not observing a ‘significant’ change doesn’t negate the theory at all.
The fact that there may be an invisible, undetectable Atlas holding the world on his shoulder, doesn't negate that particular theory at all either.
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:45 pmHowever, there are plenty of examples of evolution happening on timescales short enough to be observed directly. Some are the result of laboratory experiment (e.g. on bacteria and viruses) but other examples in nature can be found quite easily with a quick search. Here’s one chosen at random:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/643 ... y-evolving

Notice how the observed facts make sense and fit very well with the ToE narrative.
I don't believe one kind can change into a completely different kind. That is my stance. Species are eternally distinct in my worldview. While from your point of view it may be feasible that microevolution might turn into macroevolution.... that remains at the level of a "maybe." And according to my worldview it is simply wrong. So on what possible basis do I have to accept your theory as factual? I don't. I accept it as your speculation. That's all that I'm obliged to do. That's all society is obliged to do.

If it were possible to observe macroevolution, that would be a different kettle of fish. But that's just not the case.
Last edited by Dimmesdale on Mon May 03, 2021 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #317

Post by Dimmesdale »

benchwarmer wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:46 pm
The picture is just that. A representation of something. It is explaining all the various types of evidence available if one wishes to go find/observe it. Did you expect a pile of bones to pour out of this web page onto your desk for examination?
Perhaps I need not quibble on the precise definition of "evidence." Perhaps it would make more sense to ask: is the data featured "good" or "bad" evidence? Is it slanted as I believe it is? If so, then that's bad evidence and a bit of a red herring, no? When it comes to arriving at factual conclusions what good is bad evidence? At what point does it cease being evidence properly speaking and becomes propaganda? Are we even aware of these questions?

I think we should be.
benchwarmer wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 9:46 pmI'm pretty sure no one was implying the picture itself WAS the evidence. It simply demonstrates SOME of the types of evidence used to support the TOE. The picture also accurately reflects the Christian Creationist type of evidence. i.e. whatever is written (and interpreted) in the Bible.
Again, it comes down to substance rather than appearance. I can rattle off all sorts of red herrings in support of my position, pretend that they are actually in support of my thesis, whereas they only function if I am working on the assumption that the theory is right in light of them.

It seems to me a form of cherry-picking. Both atheists and fundamentalist theists would then be guilty on that charge. The latter when it comes to their holy texts and the former in reading the "book of nature."

Still not impressed with the pic. It doesn't go into any detail whatsoever in proving its thesis. All it is is mockery. And that is not evidence.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #318

Post by Diagoras »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:59 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:45 pm Are you taking a position that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t make sense? That there isn’t a ‘narrative’?
There are plenty of false narratives. Plausibility does not equate to reality.
I thought it was a simple yes/no question. I’m not sure what your answer is.

Dimmesdale wrote:The fact that there may be an invisible, undetectable Atlas holding the world on his shoulder, doesn't negate that particular theory at all either.
Straw man. ToE can be tested and detected in many different ways (fossil records, DNA, embryology, etc.) whereas your Atlas (along with Russell’s teapot and Sagan’s dragon in his garage) cannot.

Dimmesdale wrote:I don't believe one kind can change into a completely different kind. That is my stance.
They can’t on any timescale close to a human lifespan. And it’s impossible for any individual of a species to ‘evolve’ into another species on its own. But fossil records provide solid (heh) evidence that such changes have occurred.

Dimmesdale wrote:And according to my worldview it is simply wrong.
All I can do is suggest exploring other worldviews.

Dimmesdale wrote:So on what possible basis do I have to accept your theory as factual?
By testing and questioning it and applying critical thinking? It’s not my theory, either.

Dimmesdale wrote:I accept it as your speculation. That's all that I'm obliged to do. That's all society is obliged to do.
You have no obligation to me to accept any speculation, opinion, fact, theory, revelation or indeed, random gibberish. But science progresses precisely because some people don’t accept what others say until they have themselves made enough experiments and observations to decide its value.

Dimmesdale wrote:If it were possible to observe macroevolution, that would be a different kettle of fish. But that's just not the case.
But we can, and do. The fossil record shows exactly that - just on a longer timescale.

Online
User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7144
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1271 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #319

Post by Tcg »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:09 pm Perhaps it would make more sense to ask: is the data featured "good" or "bad" evidence? Is it slanted as I believe it is?
Great. Now all you have to do is provide evidence that it is slanted. As you certainly know, simply stating your belief is not a logically sound argument.

I'll look forward to logical support for your belief.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Evidence For And Against Evolution

Post #320

Post by Dimmesdale »

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pm
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 10:59 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:45 pm Are you taking a position that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t make sense? That there isn’t a ‘narrative’?
There are plenty of false narratives. Plausibility does not equate to reality.
I thought it was a simple yes/no question. I’m not sure what your answer is.
Yes. Evolution does have a narrative. Whether it is air-tight, or even coherent in a way that proves itself beyond a reasonable doubt -- I don't think it's anywhere near there.

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmStraw man. ToE can be tested and detected in many different ways (fossil records, DNA, embryology, etc.) whereas your Atlas (along with Russell’s teapot and Sagan’s dragon in his garage) cannot.
You think all these separate avenues are converging upon the one single truth of evolution, I understand that. But I think that's an illusion. Like I mentioned in the court case example, many prosecutorial factors may converge in giving the appearance that a criminal is guilty. Past history, circumstantial evidence, etc. But one solid alibi can blow all that to pieces. I have my alibi, and I plan on sticking to it.
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmThey can’t on any timescale close to a human lifespan. And it’s impossible for any individual of a species to ‘evolve’ into another species on its own. But fossil records provide solid (heh) evidence that such changes have occurred.
Because I haven't observed it, know no one who has observed it, and recognize no legitimate authority that I accept accept it, I don't buy it (for all those reasons). And I also question the fossil record. I don't think the evidence is "solid" -- whatever that means. That itself is a judgment that requires unpacking, not mere assertion. Much that seemed "solid" evidence-wise throughout human history has proven itself illusory or fraudulent. So, there's also that.
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmAll I can do is suggest exploring other worldviews.
Since I am already convinced I am right on this issue, for me that would be largely a waste of time.
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmBy testing and questioning it and applying critical thinking? It’s not my theory, either.
I have applied critical thinking and and my own intellectual acumen and I have come to the opposite conclusion.

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmYou have no obligation to me to accept any speculation, opinion, fact, theory, revelation or indeed, random gibberish. But science progresses precisely because some people don’t accept what others say until they have themselves made enough experiments and observations to decide its value.
If I or society don't have to accept it then why is the scientific establishment trying to sell it as fact in the public schools?


Diagoras wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:43 pmBut we can, and do. The fossil record shows exactly that - just on a longer timescale.
You yourself said no one living can observe it. And the fossil record shows nothing about evolution. Just decayed matter. It is only working on the assumption of evolution that we perceive it to be supportive of the theory. To an unbiased observer, this is not so.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Post Reply