What evidence would convince you of evolution?

[DeMotts]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 346 by DanieltheDragon]

I was of the opinion that he already said why. One word - speculation.
However, that's my understanding. Let me allow him to speak for himself.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Another dodge. I have no problem affirming that none of the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis is backed by solid evidence. Where as you are still trying to brush the accusation of misrepresentation aside.

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

I disagree with the correct representation of abiogenesis, where as you acknowledge that none of the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis is backed by solid science.

Same advice as before, it's not something you should be announcing for the world to know.

Why not?

What ever gave you that impression? Can you perhaps entertain the idea that further understanding of evolution would lead you to accept that, yes, what scientists have presented does indeed qualify as evidence for evolution?

Further understanding like what? Tell me what other possible understandings there are, and I will let you know as whether or not they are good enough, at least for me.

Just know that the CURRENT understanding isn't enough.

I get that, but that doesn't matter, science says birds and reptiles are the same kind.

No, scientists say that birds and reptiles are the same kind, not science. The difference between scientists and sciences is simple; science doesn't have biases, prejudices, dogmas, and presuppositions. Guess what, scientists do.

You don't get to decide what science says or doesn't say just because you don't believe it. Do you get that?

And I don't have to accept everything that men in lab coats tell me, either. Do you get that?

That's why it is cool, it is not mere speculation.

You already admitted that it was, though? Are you lying again?

Lets start with the obvious. Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

I disagree. Next.

Anything other than "evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind" is a misrepresentation of evolution, regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not.

I don't believe that a reptile evolved into a bird. Next.

Don't care if you accept it or not, now that you know evolution says birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs. You have zero excuse in saying anything other than "evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is not an example of dinosaurs producing non-dinosaurs, but an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs."

I believe that when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile produced a "non-reptile"...and it is at that point at which I could care less what the theory actually states because either way, I am saying it didn't happen at all.

Exactly, which is one of the many observations that lead logically to evolution - it's not a presupposition but a conclusion.

When I see birds producing what they are, not what they aren't...I logically conclude that they could not have come from reptiles, at all.

No specific laws, I was referring to things like reproduction, variations, inheritance and selection.

So, if you only see animals producing what they are (dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc), what would make you think that long ago, when you weren't around to see it, that reptile-bird transformations were going on?

Again with the misrepresentation of evolution. We evolutionists would like you to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, animals were producing what they are and not what they aren't, just like we see today.

Yet, a reptile produced a bird.

A speculation that is based on what we have observed.

It can't be a fact if it is based off of speculation.

No, a step by step gradual change, inline with what we observed today.

Sure, gradual change. LOL.

You can speculate, but you can't present empirical evidence like biologists can.

I am speculating no less than biologists...you just said "speculation based on observation" above...so make no mistake, we are both speculating.

The word assumption downplays the evidence we have for supporting the claim that wings evolved.

Evolved? I am trying to figure out how they got there in the first place. Cart before the horse fallacy?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 343 by Bust Nak]

"Evolution's not happening" and "there is no evidence that evolution happened" are not a very good reasons for not believing in evolution, because we actually have observed and repeatable instances of evolution in a lab environment.

"After 136 years of "experimental evolution", all they have been able to show, is that life does not evolve... cannot - no mouse have produced any offspring that becomes another kind of organism" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because evolution actually say mouse could only ever produced offspring that are variations of mouse. The observation actually matches the theory.

"Speculations, and assumptions are not evidence. The phylogenetic tree is an inaccurate and baseless "history of life"" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because the phylogenetic tree is neither inaccurate nor baseless speculation.

Hence my earlier remark, they are not very good reasons.

Do you care to elaborate then?
A counter argument would give me something to address.
Otherwise, I still come to the same conclusion, since I said way more than those quotes you picked out.

That's the thing, you post a lot but much of it is useless, they don't support your conclusion. Again, the latest example is the stuff to do with the brain. Sure, the brain is made up of lots of complex parts, sure it needs all its parts to function, I don't have anything to say against those point, I agree with them. What I am disputing, is your conclusion, that it somehow implies that evolution cannot produce a brain.

[Bust Nak]

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

I disagree with the correct representation of abiogenesis, where as you acknowledge that none of the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis is backed by solid science.

That much is fine. But that's not all you said now is it.

Why not?

Because it paints you as a close minded individual.

Further understanding like what? Tell me what other possible understandings there are, and I will let you know as whether or not they are good enough, at least for me.

Just know that the CURRENT understanding isn't enough.

Didn't you just declare that no amount of understanding will get you to accept evolution? Did you have a change of mind? Well lets start with theistic evolution. Understand how evolution is compatible with Christianity, do you think that might be good enough?

No, scientists say that birds and reptiles are the same kind, not science. The difference between scientists and sciences is simple; science doesn't have biases, prejudices, dogmas, and presuppositions. Guess what, scientists do.

Fine, scientists say that birds and reptiles are the same kind. You don't get to decide what scientists says or doesn't say just because you don't believe it. Better?

And I don't have to accept everything that men in lab coats tell me, either. Do you get that?

Yes, I do get that. But you still don't get to misrepresent them even if you don't accept what they say.

You already admitted that it was, though? Are you lying again?

Notice the addition of the word "mere?" No where have I admitted that the evolution of wings is mere speculation. What is it with you and the accusation of lying? You do realise it's against the forum rules right?

I disagree. Next.

I don't believe that a reptile evolved into a bird. Next.

I am not asking you to agree or disagree. I am correcting you on your misconception. Repeat after me: evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

I believe that when a reptile evolved into a bird, the reptile produced a "non-reptile"...and it is at that point at which I could care less what the theory actually states because either way, I am saying it didn't happen at all.

Still don't care if you believe it or not. Repeat after me: evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

When I see birds producing what they are, not what they aren't...I logically conclude that they could not have come from reptiles, at all.

Where is the logic in that?

So, if you only see animals producing what they are (dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc), what would make you think that long ago, when you weren't around to see it, that reptile-bird transformations were going on?

Because such transformation is still going on in dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats.

Yet, a reptile produced a bird.

Which is why it is so important to not misrepresent what evolution says: they are the same kind.

It can't be a fact if it is based off of speculation.

It's not a mere speculation when it is based off facts.

Sure, gradual change. LOL.

Again with the "LOL" you said you were talking this seriously.

I am speculating no less than biologists...you just said "speculation based on observation" above...so make no mistake, we are both speculating.

Some speculations are better supported than others.

Evolved? I am trying to figure out how they got there in the first place. Cart before the horse fallacy?

Again, I stress the importance of not mixing up the premises and conclusion. That wings evolved is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That much is fine. But that's not all you said now is it.

I said all that was needed.

Didn't you just declare that no amount of understanding will get you to accept evolution? Did you have a change of mind?

In other words I'm saying, if you can prove me wrong, by all means.

Well lets start with theistic evolution. Understand how evolution is compatible with Christianity, do you think that might be good enough?

If I saw evidence that he did it that way, as opposed to the way that I believe he did it, then that would be enough.

That is the point, the evidence is lacking regardless.

Fine, scientists say that birds and reptiles are the same kind. You don't get to decide what scientists says or doesn't say just because you don't believe it. Better?

It would be better if what they say was in line with what they can prove. That would be much better.

Yes, I do get that. But you still don't get to misrepresent them even if you don't accept what they say.

Ok, I agree. Now about that reptile-evolved-into-a-bird stuff...where is the scientific evidence supporting it?

Notice the addition of the word "mere?" No where have I admitted that the evolution of wings is mere speculation. What is it with you and the accusation of lying? You do realise it's against the forum rules right?

Did you, or did you NOT say that the article posted regarding the evolution of wings was speculative?

I am not asking you to agree or disagree. I am correcting you on your misconception. Repeat after me: evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

I thought I disagreed with that on the other post.

Still don't care if you believe it or not. Repeat after me: evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

I thought I disagreed with this, too.

Where is the logic in that?

Where is the logic in believing that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals of yesterday was doing stuff that the animals of today haven't been observed to do?

Because such transformation is still going on in dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats.

And when we observe dog and cat offspring, we don't see anything on them that resemble wings, do we?

Which is why it is so important to not misrepresent what evolution says: they are the same kind.

Sure, that is the theory, isn't it?

It's not a mere speculation when it is based off facts.

What facts?

Some speculations are better supported than others.

No argument from me there.

Again, I stress the importance of not mixing up the premises and conclusion. That wings evolved is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

The conclusion is not based upon a proven fact, is it?

[H.sapiens]

That much is fine. But that's not all you said now is it.

I said all that was needed.

Didn't you just declare that no amount of understanding will get you to accept evolution? Did you have a change of mind?

In other words I'm saying, if you can prove me wrong, by all means.

Well lets start with theistic evolution. Understand how evolution is compatible with Christianity, do you think that might be good enough?

If I saw evidence that he did it that way, as opposed to the way that I believe he did it, then that would be enough.

That is the point, the evidence is lacking regardless.

Fine, scientists say that birds and reptiles are the same kind. You don't get to decide what scientists says or doesn't say just because you don't believe it. Better?

It would be better if what they say was in line with what they can prove. That would be much better.

Yes, I do get that. But you still don't get to misrepresent them even if you don't accept what they say.

Ok, I agree. Now about that reptile-evolved-into-a-bird stuff...where is the scientific evidence supporting it?

Notice the addition of the word "mere?" No where have I admitted that the evolution of wings is mere speculation. What is it with you and the accusation of lying? You do realise it's against the forum rules right?

Did you, or did you NOT say that the article posted regarding the evolution of wings was speculative?

I am not asking you to agree or disagree. I am correcting you on your misconception. Repeat after me: evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

I thought I disagreed with that on the other post.

Still don't care if you believe it or not. Repeat after me: evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

I thought I disagreed with this, too.

Where is the logic in that?

Where is the logic in believing that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals of yesterday was doing stuff that the animals of today haven't been observed to do?

Because such transformation is still going on in dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats.

And when we observe dog and cat offspring, we don't see anything on them that resemble wings, do we?

Which is why it is so important to not misrepresent what evolution says: they are the same kind.

Sure, that is the theory, isn't it?

It's not a mere speculation when it is based off facts.

What facts?

Some speculations are better supported than others.

No argument from me there.

Again, I stress the importance of not mixing up the premises and conclusion. That wings evolved is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

The conclusion is not based upon a proven fact, is it?

Can you name the bones in a bird's body?

Can you name the bones in a reptile's body/

Can you identify those bones in a bird's body that were re-purposed from a reptile's bones.

If you can not do all three of the the tasks listed above, don't you think you might be better off paying attention to the learned opinions (speculations in your terms) of people who can?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 351 by Bust Nak]

Finally, we are going somewhere.
Show me the part of my post you got this from.

What I am disputing, is your conclusion, that it somehow implies that evolution cannot produce a brain.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 351 by Bust Nak]

Finally, we are going somewhere.
Show me the part of my post you got this from.

What I am disputing, is your conclusion, that it somehow implies that evolution cannot produce a brain.

Here:

What the facts show...
•There is no evidence that the brain structure developed in parts over millions of years apart.
Scientists have no basis for this assertion.

•There is no evidence that any one organism lived millions of years old to evolve a brain.
This assertion is also baseless, as well as absurd. No fairytale is that unbeatable.
The brains of every organism develops at birth, as is evident today.

...

The evolution theory sufers some major brain damage. It has no backbone.

This is what I was talking about. The rest of that post, the facts about the brain, those are all fine, I have nothing to add to those. Jumping to your conclusion that "there is no evidence..." is what I am objecting to.

[Bust Nak]

I said all that was needed.

And it was in those extra stuff that you misrepresented abiogenesis.

In other words I'm saying, if you can prove me wrong, by all means.

Much better.

If I saw evidence that he did it that way, as opposed to the way that I believe he did it, then that would be enough.

That is the point, the evidence is lacking regardless.

Sounds like you do at least accept that evolution is compatible with Christianity, can you confirm that?

It would be better if what they say was in line with what they can prove. That would be much better.

Well they can.

Ok, I agree. Now about that reptile-evolved-into-a-bird stuff...where is the scientific evidence supporting it?

What's wrong with the stuff I mentioned already re: fossils, genetics and morphology?

Did you, or did you NOT say that the article posted regarding the evolution of wings was speculative?

Yes. I also said it was not mere speculative, because they have scientific support.

I thought I disagreed with that on the other post.

You did disagree with it, but that doesn't matter one bit. You don't get to decide what evolution says and doesn't say.

I thought I disagreed with this, too.

You did, and I still don't care. Repeat after me: evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

Where is the logic in believing that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals of yesterday was doing stuff that the animals of today haven't been observed to do?

I don't know. You tell me.

And when we observe dog and cat offspring, we don't see anything on them that resemble wings, do we?

No, we don't.

Sure, that is the theory, isn't it?

Say, so repeat after me: Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

What facts?

Such as the similarities between modern birds and reptiles, or the existence of earlier gliders fossils.

The conclusion is not based upon a proven fact, is it?

Of course it is proven. See the above re: What facts?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 351 by Bust Nak]

Finally, we are going somewhere.
Show me the part of my post you got this from.

What I am disputing, is your conclusion, that it somehow implies that evolution cannot produce a brain.

Here:

What the facts show...
•There is no evidence that the brain structure developed in parts over millions of years apart.
Scientists have no basis for this assertion.

•There is no evidence that any one organism lived millions of years old to evolve a brain.
This assertion is also baseless, as well as absurd. No fairytale is that unbeatable.
The brains of every organism develops at birth, as is evident today.

...

The evolution theory sufers some major brain damage. It has no backbone.

This is what I was talking about. The rest of that post, the facts about the brain, those are all fine, I have nothing to add to those. Jumping to your conclusion that "there is no evidence..." is what I am objecting to.

You're all over the place B.
First, you say

What I am disputing, is your conclusion, that it somehow implies that evolution cannot produce a brain.

Now you say

Jumping to your conclusion that "there is no evidence..." is what I am objecting to.

So I am more lost than previously.
If there is something you don't agree with, or object to, in the post, then I think if you said why you don't agree with it. For example, "it's not true because z y x...", rather than just saying things like, "that's not true, or you jump to this conclusion." that would be progressive. Otherwise, I really don't know how else to respond other than, "What do you mean? What's wrong with it? Why is it wrong?" You could save me that by directly providing evidence against what I say.