How can you not believe in evolution?

[MikeH]

Or other equally valid religious text.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Scientists are reluctant to use words like "proof". No scientist has ever proved that the Earth is round, for instance.

While I accept your meaning (since I am a scientist) I reject your example. Proof that the Earth is roundish has existed since ancient Greece including reasonable estimates of its circumference.

But the fossil record is so perfectly consistent with common decent that it "proves" this beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a fact that modern complex organisms have developed from simpler precursosrs in a step-by-step process spanning millions of years. While biologists mean something more specific when they use the word "evolution", this is consistent with the common English usage of the word: gradual development.

My research is in infectious disease and during my career (so far) I've debunked a number of 'facts' that you can still read in medical textbooks. If you want to argue that evolution is a reasonable theory with evidence to support it, thats fine. But it isnt a 'fact' to me, not by a long shot.

As the mechanisms of biological evolution (random mutation and natural selection) have also been observed, it is simply incorrect to imply that evolution is "just theoretical" as creationists do.

It depends on what creationists mean by 'just theoretical'. It is a theory and not a fact. That doesnt mean that it's a fairy tale (as are creation stories).

There are numerous examples of speciation that have been observed in eukaryotic organisms. TalkOrigins has examples.

Interesting reading once you get beyond the attitude on the main page. I would agree that there is evidence for eukaryotic speciation, but I would like to see more. For example, some of the research cited was not reproducible.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Only half true. Harmful mutations do not necessarily need selective prressure to be selected against.

Its quibbling, but correct.

Full of holes in what sense? It is extraordinary that we were able to recover as many fossils as we did. Ssome of the fossils are tremendous discoveries - the one found in China recently is a clear transitional form between birds and dinosaurs.

The evidence for speciation from fossils is based on interpretations based upon current and previous attitudes. Its not an experimental science. You say the fossil is 'a clear transitional form between birds and dinosaurs'. I say its not, its just a matter of opinion. Its like the current trend toward portraying dinosaurs as colourful. If someone can deduce skin colour from an animal thats been dead for 100M years, I'd like to meet him or her.

Adaptation and selection is evolution. In fact, the scientific definition of evolution is "change in the frequencies of alleles." Alleles are different forms of the same gene. If you say the frequencies of alleles haven't changed, there is no selective pressure (on those genes).

There are different definitions of evolution. Personally I dont accept that as a very good one.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Common descent is a "fact" in much the same sense that the roundness of the Earth is a "fact". The degree of correlation between the evolutionary "Tree of Life" of common descent and the sequence of the fossil record (and genetics etc) is so great that no alternative explanation is remotely credible. Attempted alternative explanations are similar in credibility to flat-Earth arguments about "bending light rays", NASA faking photographs from space, and suchlike.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Modern creationism doesn't make sense without the Bible.

It doesn't even make sense with the Bible.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Common descent is a "fact" in much the same sense that the roundness of the Earth is a "fact". The degree of correlation between the evolutionary "Tree of Life" of common descent and the sequence of the fossil record (and genetics etc) is so great that no alternative explanation is remotely credible. Attempted alternative explanations are similar in credibility to flat-Earth arguments about "bending light rays", NASA faking photographs from space, and suchlike.

I'm afraid we'll simply have to differ on what is a fact. Evolution is a scientific theory, the earth being roundish is a fact.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I'm afraid we'll simply have to differ on what is a fact. Evolution is a scientific theory, the earth being roundish is a fact.

Especially since we can fly up into orbit, go all around the planet and say "hey look, it's roundish!". There is some very compelling evidence in favour of evolution, but nothing that is as 100% cast-iron as that.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It is rather easy to show statistically that the odds against the fossil sequence appearing as it does by chance are truly astronomical: much greater than the estimated number of atoms in the Universe, for instance. This makes common descent one of the most rock-solid "facts" in science.

FrustratedPoet: have YOU seen the Earth from space?

We need to trust the experts on that, just as we need to trust the experts on fossils, genetics etc. But I have personally witnessed more evidence for common descent than for the theory that the Earth is round.

[CyberGnu]

Ah, Jack, the wall is so hard, yet your forehead is so strong.

Keep it up

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It is rather easy to show statistically that the odds against the fossil sequence appearing as it does by chance are truly astronomical: much greater than the estimated number of atoms in the Universe, for instance. This makes common descent one of the most rock-solid "facts" in science.

FrustratedPoet: have YOU seen the Earth from space?

We need to trust the experts on that, just as we need to trust the experts on fossils, genetics etc. But I have personally witnessed more evidence for common descent than for the theory that the Earth is round.

You can do experiments yourself to prove that the earth is round.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It is rather easy to show statistically that the odds against the fossil sequence appearing as it does by chance are truly astronomical: much greater than the estimated number of atoms in the Universe, for instance....

Are you saying evolution is 'chance'?

[Jack the Bodiless]

You can do experiments yourself to prove that the earth is round.

Well, I've never seen the "horizon effect" on ships at sea (too much haze whenever I've looked for it).

I've seen the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, but this only indicates that the Earth casts a shadow with a curved edge: not necessarily that it's spherical.

In principle, I could reproduce what Eratosthenes did, but this was based on the assumption that the Sun was very distant: maybe it appears higher in the sky as you move towards the "equator" because you're moving under its path?

I could use constellations instead. But, in principle, I could also perform DNA analyses on a range of species to demonstrate common descent. I have done neither, so I cannot say from personal experience that round-Earthism is better-supported than common descent.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Are you saying evolution is 'chance'?

No, I'm saying that the sequence of the fossil record is NOT chance: that common descent is the only explanation that fits.

Nothing else comes close. Except "Satan planted the fossils to deceive us". Maybe Satan bends light rays to make the Earth look round? The authors of the Bible thought it was flat.

[problem_child]

It always amazes me how people think the bible has any relationship to reality or the true history or facts of the univers. Fair enough- hundreds of years ago when people didn't know any better, but now... that people persist in bringing up the bible in conversations of what the univers actually is, and how it originated is... daft. The bible has no more claim to be taken seriously then do all the 'pagan' religions that christianity merrily stepped on on the road to hemispheric domination.

If people are gonna babble on about that book, then I may as well claim (with equal authority) that the world was created by Baal, or the celtic 'Horned God' of masculine fertility (later hijacked by christians and made into the devil) or Ogun the Yuroba god of Iron etc.

[Giancarlo]

The bible is basically the only basis creationists have to support themselves. They have nothing other. Evolution has numerous facts and solid evidence, such as fossil records and micro-evolution. Creationists I will say again look foolish when they claim the world is 6,000 years old, when ice cores say otherwise.