Originally posted by snowinscotlandIn the absence of evidence one way or another it would be 50/50. However, all the evidence to date suggests that evolution did, does and is happening. I'd say that's distinctly NOT a 50/50 probability.
I know or I don't - that's a 50/50 bet.
Edit: Oh, sorry, you didn't contribute to the 'probability' thread here...
Evolution either happened or it didn't - that's 50/50 then....
😉
Originally posted by XanthosNZI agree with you except that I don't believe that it is right to talk about a 0 or 1 probability as that is meaningless and we should rather just call it a fact. So when we do talk about a probability (other than 0 or 1) of a past or present event then we are implying that we are talking about what we think and not what actually happened. Therefore the probability is entirely dependent on our knowledge. So although scotishinnz is probably more than 99.99% sure that evolution is accurate and factual, a creationist may be 99.99% sure that it is not. Unless we specify the information we are basing our probabilities on, it becomes meaningless to discuss it. The poster who started this claimed that the probability of evolution happening was 0 but did not say why. He probably meant to base that claim on specific information such as the probability of life starting in a specific 'chemical soup' of a given size etc but since he did not back it up with facts of any kind it was really a meaningless statement.
The true probability is either a 1 or a 0 (I can't be 0.9 man can I?) but your knowledge of my sex could be anything in between. You can be 90% sure I am a man.
So, X either happened or didn't happen (1 or 0) but you may be 90% sure it happened or 10% sure it happened (or 50/50 🙄 ).
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe're in agreement.
I agree with you except that I don't believe that it is right to talk about a 0 or 1 probability as that is meaningless and we should rather just call it a fact. So when we do talk about a probability (other than 0 or 1) of a past or present event then we are implying that we are talking about what we think and not what actually happened. Therefore the pr ...[text shortened]... but since he did not back it up with facts of any kind it was really a meaningless statement.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgreed. As always the devil is in the detail. I can back my position up with demonstrable facts. The theist can back his up with fairy tales, suppositions and wild guesses.
So although scotishinnz is probably more than 99.99% sure that evolution is accurate and factual, a creationist may be 99.99% sure that it is not.
5 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is amazing that there are presently 2,851 submissions to this discussion "What's Wrong With Evolution?" I think there are more words written to this subject than any other on the Forum. And I went through over 30 pages of hundreds of threads to verify that.
Agreed. As always the devil is in the detail. I can back my position up with demonstrable facts. The theist can back his up with fairy tales, suppositions and wild guesses.
But you have "demonstratable facts" to back up Evolution.
I wonder if I start a thread on "What's Wrong With 2+2=4?" if I could get 2,851 posts arguing back and forth on that.
How come in 2,851 exchanges you can't put the matter to rest with your "demonstratable facts?"
Is this a spiritual topic on What's Wrong With Evolution? Is it a religous or philosophical one? Or are the cold hard scientific facts going to resolve the matter someday here?
Originally posted by jaywillBecause everytime this thread quietens down (normally after a creationist stops responding after being proven wrong) someone else (KellyJay, dj2, you or someone new) comes along and states the same crap again.
How come in [b]2,851 exchanges you can't put the matter to rest with your "demonstratable facts?"[/b]
Have you read the entire thread?
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhich "demonstratable facts?"
Because everytime this thread quietens down (normally after a creationist stops responding after being proven wrong) someone else (KellyJay, dj2, you or someone new) comes along and states the same crap again.
Have you read the entire thread?
Originally posted by jaywillThe Theory of Evolution is often taken as a direct contradiction to some peoples faith. That is the reason for the length of the thread and not some perceived lack of evidence. If 2+2=5 was in the Bible then your 2+2=4 thread would be equally long.
It is amazing that there are presently 2,851 submissions to this discussion [b]"What's Wrong With Evolution?" I think there are more words written to this subject than any other on the Forum. And I went through over 30 pages of hundreds of threads to verify that.
But you have "demonstratable facts" to back up Evolution.
I wonder if I start a thr ...[text shortened]... one? Or are the cold hard scientific facts going to resolve the matter someday here?[/b]
It does seem that the theory is rather hard to understand for some people as they continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basics even after repeated explanations, and understanding the theory should not require a belief that it is fact (as seems to be the case with religion).
It is possible that they do understand it and are intentionally being deceptive by continually using strawmans, but surely that would be rather unchristian of them.
Of course the real answer to "Whats wrong with Evolution" is "It conflicts with my beliefs and therefore must be wrong" Many people go a step further and say "It is therefore totally flawed in every aspect and isn't possible in any way."
In the nearly 3000 posts can you find one "problem with evolution" that you think has not satisfactorily been shown to be either a strawman or to not be a problem at all?
Originally posted by jaywillIt is a large theory covering a lot of ground so there are a large number of demonstrable facts.
Which "demonstratable facts?"
To give just a few:
Fact: Selective breading works.
Demonstration: Ask any farmer.
Fact: Selective breading takes place in nature (Natural selection)
Demonstration: Antibiotic resistance.
Fact: Many species and sub-species exhibit features which indicate adaptation to their environment.
Demonstration: Numerous examples from around the world eg rabbits that live in snowy areas have white fur in the winter.
Fact: Many species are related to each other (ie have common ancestors).
Demonstration: DNA analysis of two species believed to be closely related (such as humans an chimpanzees) reveals that even unused sections of the DNA (junk DNA) have similar or identical patterns.
Fact: Many species not living on earth today did live in the past but only for specific periods of the earths history.
Demonstration:fossils of specific species are found only in certain ages of rock.
Fact: The oldest fossil bearing rocks have only single celled life forms.
Demonstration: Ask a geologist.
Fact: A tree structure can be built for all life forms based on their physical similarities which matches very strongly a pattern in the fossil record and a similar pattern in DNA.
Demonstration: look it up.
Originally posted by jaywillI have. Many times. You are just too stupid to accept it. Why not go out and look at the scientific literature? Why not go out and read papers on evolutionary biology - there are many.
It is amazing that there are presently 2,851 submissions to this discussion [b]"What's Wrong With Evolution?" I think there are more words written to this subject than any other on the Forum. And I went through over 30 pages of hundreds of threads to verify that.
But you have "demonstratable facts" to back up Evolution.
I wonder if I start a thr ...[text shortened]... one? Or are the cold hard scientific facts going to resolve the matter someday here?[/b]
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a large theory covering a lot of ground so there are a large number of demonstrable facts.
To give just a few:
Fact: Selective breading works.
Demonstration: Ask any farmer.
Fact: Selective breading takes place in nature (Natural selection)
Demonstration: Antibiotic resistance.
Fact: Many species and sub-species exhibit features which indicat ...[text shortened]... trongly a pattern in the fossil record and a similar pattern in DNA.
Demonstration: look it up.
Fact: Selective breading works.
Demonstration: Ask any farmer.
Has any farmer selectively bread an animal of one species and produced another of a different species?
Let me guess. That would take too long so it can’t be demonstrated?
Fact: Selective breading takes place in nature (Natural selection)
Demonstration: Antibiotic resistance.
Again this doesn't prove that there are relationships of decent between animals of different species. So still some question about the interpretation of this evidence is being argued.
Fact: Many species and sub-species exhibit features which indicate adaptation to their environment.
Demonstration: Numerous examples from around the world eg rabbits that live in snowy areas have white fur in the winter.
Fact: Many species are related to each other (ie have common ancestors).
The first fact does not demonstrate that rabbits are descendents of another animal of another species.
Does relation does not prove relationships of descent? Could the evidence of relation be interpreted in any other possible way? If so then why do we have to insist that an Macro Evolutionary theory is the only interpretation we must accept?
Demonstration: DNA analysis of two species believed to be closely related (such as humans an chimpanzees) reveals that even unused sections of the DNA (junk DNA) have similar or identical patterns.
Notice your own words – ”two species BELIEVED to be closely related (such as humans and chimpanzees)”
I’m sure you can recognize the circular reasoning of using a belief as proof of the belief.
Fact: Many species not living on earth today did live in the past but only for specific periods of the earths history.
Demonstration:fossils of specific species are found only in certain ages of rock.
That is true. Some animals apparently lived before which no longer live.
That does not prove that I am descended from a trilobite. It does not prove that you are a decendant of a salamander.
Fact: The oldest fossil bearing rocks have only single celled life forms.
Demonstration: Ask a geologist.
Does not prove that you are the descendant of a worm.
And some of the dating of rock by fossils and fossils by rocks is circular reasoning.
Tiny animals lived a long time ago. Doesn’t prove that they are our ancestors.
Besides "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccesible in a fossil." It is very difficult to discover th biological makeup of a creature by looking at its fossil remains.
"The fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstructed in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendeant relationships" - Jonathan Wells.
Fact: A tree structure can be built for all life forms based on their physical similarities which matches very strongly a pattern in the fossil record and a similar pattern in DNA.
Demonstration: look it up.
The trunk of the tree is missing usually it seems because the origin of life is not accounted for in Macro Evolution theory . This is a theoretical interpretation of some evidence of relationships. These tree diagrams do not prove that you are the distant offspring of an ape like missing link.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWhat a twit.
Fact: Selective breading works.
Demonstration: Ask any farmer.
Has any farmer selectively bread an animal of one species and produced another of a different species?
Let me guess. That would take too long so it can’t be demonstrated?
Fact: Selective breading takes place in nature (Natural selection)
Demonstration: Antibiotic resis tree diagrams do not prove that you are the distant offspring of an ape like missing link.
Has any farmer selectively bread an animal of one species and produced another of a different species?
Yes, horses and donkeys are different species. So are mules. The fact that mules are sterile is unimportant. Tell me, chihuahuas and great danes are of the same species, but how long do you think one of their offspring would survive in the wild? Hmm, two separate non-interbreeding groups of organisms. Tell me, do you think that over time they are likely to get more or less genetically and physiologically similar? I also believe you mean "bred", not bread.
Irrespective of this, the process of speciation has been observed, and documented in the wild. As has the generation of new species.
The first fact does not demonstrate that rabbits are descendents of another animal of another species.
You dumb creationists get all hung up on the word "species". If you were biologists, you'd realise there are about a dozen different definitions of that word, dependant on context. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species, for an article which discusses some of this. Of course, from an evolutionary point of view, the entire concept of species is nonsense. "Species" are human-made construct - in evolutionary terms it's impossible to simply delineate a single point where one species become two species. They become two species when WE classify them as two species. Your "point" suddenly disappears from view.
Does relation does not prove relationships of descent? Could the evidence of relation be interpreted in any other possible way? If so then why do we have to insist that an Macro Evolutionary theory is the only interpretation we must accept?
Feel free to go out, do a degree, PhD, study the subject for a number of years, compile your evidence, and propose your alternate scientific explanation. Remember, it will have to explain all the data which evolutionary theory currently explains. In short, everything.
Notice your own words – ”two species BELIEVED to be closely related (such as humans and chimpanzees)”
I’m sure you can recognize the circular reasoning of using a belief as proof of the belief.
twhitehead meant the scientific usage of the word "believe", as in "all the evidence (in this case physiological similarity) points to this being the most likely explanation". Not the theological definition of the word, as in "my brain has seized from not being used and I'm simply spouting what my minister told me to think".
Some animals apparently lived before which no longer live.
That does not prove that I am descended from a trilobite. It does not prove that you are a decendant of a salamander.
And your alternate explanation is....? Wait, no, I know. Goddunit. And your evidence??? Of course, we can look at the DNA or the physiology, or the biochemistry and do cladistic analysis which shows the trees of descent. You can go ask your minister.
And some of the dating of rock by fossils and fossils by rocks is circular reasoning.
And that's not how it occurs. You are either naive or a liar. I don't particularly care which.
The trunk of the tree is missing usually it seems because the origin of life is not accounted for in Macro Evolution theory
Rubbish. You are either naive or a liar (again). I can show you many trees containing a "root".