Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? 81 Replies latest jw experiences

Seeker4

Take some time to really examine the evidence here.

The US is one of the few countries where the debate about teaching "creation science" is an issue. This seems to be mainly due to the influence of Christian fundamentalists. Other first world countries aren't trying to get the Bible and fundamental Christian interpretations of it into the classrooms, but in the US the fundamentalists have considerable influence, especially under the present administration and its anti-science, fundamentalist president and administration.

I didn't want to accept evolution when I was first leaving the Witnesses. I spent a long time going over the evidence, which is pretty easy now with the Internet. Examine the two sides of the debate on www.talkorigins.com and similar sites. See who makes the best case, and where science really points. I don't think it's any accident that there isn't a reputable college or university anywhere in the world today that doesn't teach evolution as the basis for most of its science classes. As someone here wrote, evolution is one of the most successful theories in science. And theory, unlike what many anti-science opposers would have one believe, is actually the highest level of scientific thought, not the lowest.

And evolution is NOT about how life originated - it is how life evolved. Ideas about life's origeni rother area all together.

S4
FairMind

but to assert that evolution is not proven, is simply false and misleading. it is exactly the opposite of what you assert, and i cannot let the statement slip by. i don't really care if people think that all i want to do is debate. reality is reality, and i will defend it.
Well, if you can assert it is proven (which is rediculous) then I can certainly assert that it has not been proved. Did you know that "Scientists" have proven through DNA studies that ALL mankind decended from a single woman (and I don't mean one who wasn't married)?
kid-A

There are so many holes in the theory of Evolution it is basically a religion for scientists who won't consider a Creator.
This is complete nonsense and standard creationist tripe. There is so much overwhelming evidence to support evolution at the genetic, anatomical, anthropological and phylogenetic fields of research it would fill 10,000 text-books. If you dont have a DOCTORAL degree in ANY of the above mentioned fields (or at least have seriously studied these fields with an open mind) then you dont have a CLUE what you are talking about. You are just living in terror at the prospect that your concept of a "god" is just a cherished delusion and psychological anesthesia.
Science will continue and advance (and yes, my research will still get funded) regardless of bible-thumping loonies living in the dark ages....
There is nothing more dangerous than an EX-JW scientist such as myself, since I know all the B.S. and circular logic the I.D. and creationist "magicians" and snake oil salesmen continually are pulling out of their hats.
Cheers!
hooberus

with evolution, you have the paleontological record, and genetics. in astronomy, for example, it is the same historical type experiementation that takes place.
with the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, there is NO FAITH required.

The paleontological record, and genetics are not exlusive property of "evolution". Biblical creationists also "have" these very same things.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
tetrapod.sapien

fairmind,
Well, if you can assert it is proven (which is rediculous) then I can certainly assert that it has not been proved.
it's not ridiculous at all. it's not a two way street as you imply. evolution has evidence to back it up. creation HAS NONE. my assertion is backed up by the mountain of evidence for evolution. YOUR assertion is rhetoric.
Did you know that "Scientists" have proven through DNA studies that ALL mankind decended from a single woman (and I don't mean one who wasn't married)?
married? do you mean conqurered by another ape in a cave? if so then, yes, married.
of course our DNAgoes back to a single homo sapien! that's the way mutation works! but to say that it is proof for genesis, is a leap of logic often refered to as a non sequitur. perhaps you are familiar with it as the WTS owns the concept in the creation book.
TS
tetrapod.sapien

hoob,
The paleontological record, and genetics are not exlusive property of "evolution". Biblical creationists also "have" these very same things.
i am sure you are aware of how scientific method works. parsimony favours the most economic explanation, AND NOT UNFALSIFIABLE ONES ABOUT GOD. therefore, genetics and paleontology is the domain of the theory that is most economic, is falsifiable, and makes acurate predictions about future discoveries. everything that evolution IS, and everything that creationism is NOT.
TS
kid-A
Did you know that "Scientists" have proven through DNA studies that ALL mankind decended from a single woman (and I don't mean one who wasn't married)?
Again, if you had actually taken the time to UNDERSTAND the implications of this study, you would realize this was NOT referring to some ridiculous notion of an "Eve" frolicking about in the garden of Eden. THis was a study based solely on the transmission of mitochondrial DNA present in a POPULATION of early humans about 150,000 years ago in Africa. If anything, this completely disproves the biblical account of creation. One who wasn't married? WTF??? I dont recall adam and eve having a formal wedding celebration in the biblical fairytale! LOL
Here are some points to note:
The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question. I believe that this is probably the cause of so much confusion in understanding what the significance of this entity is. People think that this title has some deep theological or religious consequences. Nothing of that sort. Someone you come across who claims that the bible (or the book of Genesis) has been validated by the discovery of the Mitochondrial Eve, is talking crap---you should feel free, and even obligated, to tell them so.
The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a single one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.
While each of us necessarily has two parents, we get our mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA from the ovum (and hence from our mothers). Our mothers got their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and so on. Thus, while our nuclear DNA is a mish-mash of the DNA of our four grandparents, our mitochondrial DNA is an almost exact copy of the DNA of our maternal grandmother (the match may not be exact due to mutations. In fact, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide the molecular clock that allows us to determine how much time has elapsed since the ME lived).
The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.
The term Mitochondrial Eve itself is a title given retroactively to a woman. Often (and as is certainly the case with the ME that we are discussing) the conferring of the title occurs many hundreds of thousands of years after the death of the woman in question.
ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).
hooberus

i am sure you are aware of how scientific method works. parsimony favours the most economic explanation, AND NOT UNFALSIFIABLE ONES ABOUT GOD. therefore, genetics and paleontology is the domain of the theory that is most economic, is falsifiable, and makes acurate predictions about future discoveries. everything that evolution IS, and everything that creationism is NOT. TS
Though the subject of the existence of God may not be falsifiable, theories of creation can be and have been stated in the form of testable hypothesis (indeed the titles of rescources have been previously provided to you containing these very things).

tetrapod.sapien

to those honestly interested, here is some documentation from talk origins archives regarding evidence for evolution. for those of you who say there is no evidence for evolution, please start by responding to these basics.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes. alt

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline

Introduction

Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

Phylogenetics introduction

Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

Part 2. Past history

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

Part 4. Molecular evidence

Part 5. Change

Closing remarks

What is Universal Common Descent?

niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.

Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation.

It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

How to Cite This Document

Many people have asked how to cite this work in formal research papers and academic articles. This work is an online publication, published by the Talk.Origins archive. There are standard academic procedures for citing online publications. For example, if you last accessed this page on January 12, 2004, and used version 2.83, here is a reference in formal MLA style:

Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

For more information about citing online sources, including MLA, APA, Chicago, and CBE styles, see the formal style guidelines given in the book Online!: a reference guide to using internet sources.

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm

Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.

Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.

Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Geological Society of America (2001) "Evolution." http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2003) multiple statements. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/evolution/nas.html

National Center for Science Education. (2003) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 47 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3053_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Working Group (2001) "Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary biology and the national research agenda." American Naturalist. 158: S1. Endorsed by:
American Institute of Biological Sciences,
American Society of Naturalists,
Animal Behavior Society,
Ecological Society of America,
Genetics Society of America,
Paleontological Society,
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution,
Society for the Study of Evolution, and
Society of Systematic Biologists.
Full-text at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.pdf and http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html

Full References

Glossary

tetrapod.sapien

theories of creation can be and have been stated

theories of creation are based on an unfalsifiable. how could any subsequent hypotheses be falsifiable, if the very hypothesis that they are founded on is unfalsifiable?
really now. i have read what you have given me, and i have seen nothing that gets creationism anywhere even remotely close to evolution.
TS