Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Mally, that's ridiulous.

Humans have tailbones because -- their evolutionary ancestors had tails. But humans don't have tails now (except that once in a while a human baby does have a tail), so why do the tailbones exist? Evolution can answer that.


... until one actually notices all the flaws in the "intelligent design" argument and thinks about them in light of modern scientific knowledge.

Cheesehead your arguments are convincing but not correct.
I would recommend even a cursory reading of 'Science and Heath- A key to the scriptures' by Mary Baker Eddy if you dont wont to read the entire scriptures.
If evolution has all the answers pray enlighten me how Evolution can PROVE there is no life after death ?

I will not be happy that one denies that no one has come back from the dead
therefore...... We know that there is ONE.

If you deny Christianity then what about the belief of the Hindus, of Reincarnation? of the Lama's, of the Muslims? of the Confucinists and several others. Are they all wrong? The ancient Egyptians erected pyramids which are wonders in the World and went thru all the trouble of building them simply on the belief of a life after death? Are you conversant with how the Dalai Lama is chosen? Are they all mistaken?

I am not dismissing evolution but it is only part of the answer. Whereas it can explain life it cannot explain death. It violates the law of Conservation of Energy. Life is a subtle energy. It is not extinguished after death.
If it is then please explain this violation to me and give me a definite proof .

Mally

[S485122]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If evolution has all the answers pray enlighten me how Evolution can PROVE there is no life after death ?

This is ridicullous : why should one have to prove that something that was never observed^* does not exist. No one ever observed^* a god, an angel or a demon but one should prove they do not exist ?

^* By observed I mean a direct observation with some evidence, a scientific proof, not some poem in an old book. Anyway if any of the above concepts exist they should still be observable in modern times, not restrict themselves to "historical" times.

[retina]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If evolution has all the answers pray enlighten me how Evolution can PROVE there is no life after death ?

Proof of absence is not possible. How can we possibly go everywhere at every instant and prove the absence of something.

Proof of existence is so much easier.

Instead of demanding proof of absence, try to present a coherent case to support your argument(s). Empty challenges like the above are a waste of bandwidth.

At least many evolutionists are making an effort to find evidence. At least evolutionists only claim it is a theory and are prepared to alter it in the face of new evidence. The same cannot be said of many religous people that make no effort to find evidence beyond outdated books, and make no change in their beliefs regardless of evidence presented.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Cheesehead your arguments are convincing but not correct.

As I was falling asleep last night something bothered me; when I woke up this morning it occurred to me that in yesterday's posting I had spouted off from memory without actually checking something about which I was no expert.

Sure enough, I find that that is what happened.

I shouldn't have written what I did about vestigial organs without reading up on the subject. It was inappropriate for me to use those examples in replying to your comments.

pray enlighten me how Evolution can PROVE there is no life after death ?

The subject of life after death is not part of the scope of evolution.

Mally, I've repeatedly pointed out that you've used the "straw man" technique when challenging evolution to produce answers not in its scope. Will you ever learn to curb this mistaken habit of yours? It makes your arguments (the ones in which you do that) look silly, not convincing.

Yes, there's a parallel in my habit of spouting off without actually checking about things I think I know, but don't. That makes my arguments (the ones in which I do that) look silly. So I willingly acknowledge that my arguments would be better if I could curb that habit.

If you deny Christianity then what about the belief of the Hindus, of Reincarnation? of the Lama's, of the Muslims? of the Confucinists and several others.

I've never denied that those beliefs exist.

Are they all wrong?

Wrong insofar as they claim (or you claim on their behalf) to be science? Yes.

The ancient Egyptians erected pyramids which are wonders in the World and went thru all the trouble of building them simply on the belief of a life after death?

To a first approximation -- yes.

Beliefs can be powerful motivators without being factually correct.

Are you trying to imply that a belief is factually correct if it provides a sufficiently powerful motivation for people to accomplish some task?

Are you conversant with how the Dalai Lama is chosen?

I may have read an account once, but can't recall the details now.

Are they all mistaken?

Mistaken according to what standard?

A religion is entitled to choose its own leaders.

A religion can claim that its leaders, or its procedures for choosing its leaders, have certain characteristics. But that doesn't mean that those claims are necessarily factually correct, that those characteristics are consistent with objective reality.

Whereas it can explain life it cannot explain death.

Actually, evolution does not claim to explain either "life" or "death" (with no qualifiers). What it does explain is certain aspects of living beings.

Mally, when you write as though evolution claims to explain "life" (with no qualifiers), you're just setting up another straw-man argument. It just makes your argument look silly and useless to someone who has an accurate idea of what evolution is. Can you learn to stop doing that?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Jacob Visser

As far as I know (I am absolutely not up to date concerning contemporary physics), quarks will remain a concept since one can not isolate one. But al least the concept helps explain the behaviour observed.

The evidence for quarks is rather more solid than that.

If an electron is bounced off a proton, and the experiment has been performed many billions of times, all the available evidence suggest that there is sub-structure within the proton.

The experiment where an electron is bounced off an electron or positron (the anti-particle of an electron) has never shown any evidence whatsoever of any substructure within the electron. That's not to say there isn't any substructure, only that we have no evidence for it.

If a proton contains structure within it, the word "quark" is as good as any other to label (at least part of) the constituents.


Paul

[S485122]

Originally Posted by xilman

The evidence for quarks is rather more solid than that.

If an electron is bounced off a proton, and the experiment has been performed many billions of times, all the available evidence suggest that there is sub-structure within the proton.

What I meant was that (AFAIK) a quark can not be isolated in other words there is a substructure but so far no composing elements of the structure have been observed as individual particles.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Jacob Visser

What I meant was that (AFAIK) a quark can not be isolated in other words there is a substructure but so far no composing elements of the structure have been observed as individual particles.

I fear that you and others posting here have misunderstood and misused the technical term "particle".

In quantum field theory, and that's what we're discussing when we talk of quarks, a "particle" is an excitation in a field. If you believe that quantum field theory is a good way of explaining how things work, and it appears to be an amazingly accurate way of making predictions in a number of situations, then all sorts of things are "particles" which would not be recognized as such by classical physics. Phonons are particles, even though classical physics calls them sound waves. Photons are particles, despite being well-described as electromagnetic waves.

Anyway, quarks have been characterized. As I said, many experiments have explored the substructure of a nucleon. They've produced good observations of quarks. Just because quarks are only ever observed in close proximity to other quarks (or anti-quarks) doesn't mean they can not be observed as individual particles.

Perhaps a larger scale example may be illuminating. Stars are only ever found in close proximity to other stars (as far as we know). All known stars are constituents of galaxies and globular clusters. Isolated stars may exist but I know of no evidence for them.


Paul

[ewmayer]

Moved a bunch of postrs that were much more religion than science to the Does God Exist? thread. Please keep it at least semi-scientific, folks. If you don't even bother to acquaint yourself with the scientific foundations of evolution, you've no business posting here, just as I would have no business commenting on a particular religion if I had no familiarity with the religion in question.

Please note that gratuitous use of the "coffee" emoticon does not provide exemption from these guidelines.

[Xyzzy]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I sent that same article around to a bunch of internet pals last year - it,s a classic.

He, he, "closed-minded gravitists."

[cheesehead]

Just now I watched a "Evolution vs. Creationism" TV show where the (creationist) host supposedly presented evidence showing that evolution was false and creationism was true. Soon after it began, the host made a statement along the lines of "If evolution was true, we would see such-and-such. But we don't. Instead ..."

But his "such-and-such" was not true. That is, he presented a false explanation of evolution, which then allowed him to easily demolish the supposed evidence for evolution. This is the straw-man rhetorical device that I've pointed out many times in this forum.

The host then repeated this tactic, first presenting another false straw-man statement about what evolution would or would not predict, or required or did not require, then demolishing the straw-man again and again.

My point: If you are inclined to doubt the validity of evolution, please first make sure that the description or explanation of evolution that you're considering is a correct and competent one, not a straw-man substitute. Start with a description of creationism from a creationist source, and of evolution from an evolutionist source, before you consider either side's possibly-biased depiction of the other side.

As I've said before, I've read many articles of creationist literature (and, as above, watched creationist TV shows). So I'm not relying on some evolutionist's biased depiction of creationism when I compare the theories.

- - -

To the creationist-inclined among you:

Get a description/explanation of evolution from an evolutionist source.

If you base your rejection of evolution on depictions of evolution from only creationist sources, you haven't given the matter an honest and fair examination.

If you dodge my challenge to get your evolution description from an evolutionist source, you need to ask yourself whether you're afraid that if you did as I ask, you might find that you'd need to change your mind about which is the better explanation of nature.