Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[SkepticThinker]

Once had a philosophy professor in college that said "the theory of evolution makes about as much since as a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a 747...... but it is all we have so....."

Sounds like your philosophy professor needs to brush up on his science.

 

[viole]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see.

"Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime." - Coyne

Do you identify the set of things applicable to science, including forensic science, quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc. , with what we can directly observe with our naked eyes and within our lifetime?

On a related note, do you think Napoleon existed? I think he is outside our direct observation power, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, as I said in the post, he was a philosophy professor. And I am not making an argument for or against, just interjecting a little levity into a rather bifurcated discussion
.

Well, philosophy professor. That says it all

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Aye, but the extent of speciation which creationists want is larger than what we observe.

That's the sad thing. No factual evidence will change a mans mind who has been brainwashed since birth and lived his whole life in a lie.


Look at how many facts we post, and they are all hand waived off due to fanaticism

 

[Lyndon]

Must be great being right about everything!!!

 

[Wu Wei]

Sounds like your philosophy professor needs to brush up on his science.

Sounds like he was trying to make a joke.... and was rather successful at the time...I tried to interject some levity....my apologies...I promise I will not let it happen again

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds like he was trying to make a joke.... and was rather successful at the time...I tried to interject some levity....my apologies...I promise I will not let it happen again

It's about as funny and fresh as jokes like "well I can believe your ancestors were apes ... " ha ha ha

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation

So the only way we can know that something happened is if we can see it for ourselves? Guess that means we have to get rid of forensic science. Suspect's fingerprint was on a knife at the crime scene? Doesn't matter, you didn't see him put it there. His DNA was found in the deceased rape victim? Doesn't matter, you didn't see him put it there. Guess all crimes that were not witnessed first-hand will remain a mystery forever...

Once had a philosophy professor in college that said "the theory of evolution makes about as much since as a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a 747...... but it is all we have so....."

Good to know that he was a philosophy professor and not an actual evolutionary biologist, because what he said is a straw-man of how evolution works.

 

[Wu Wei]

It's about as funny and fresh as jokes like "well I can believe your ancestors were apes ... " ha ha ha

we disagree..... have a nice day

 

[dust1n]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see.

"Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime." - Coyne

"Within a human lifetime" seems to be a pretty huge qualifier for that sentiment, now doesn't it?

 

[Sunstone]

Well, philosophy professor. That says it all

Ciao

- viole

Not like any philosophy professor I've known, to be sure.

 

[Etritonakin]

This debate is getting oooooooooooooold.

Barley is true. Hops .......also true.......

I'ma go get some beer.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the sad thing. No factual evidence will change a mans mind who has been brainwashed since birth and lived his whole life in a lie.

I wouldn't call it a lie.
It's rather a persistent faith based perspective which is at odds with science.

 

[Lyndon]

Does believing in evolution make you a better person, how important is a belief in evolution to your everyday life, do you need evolution for any decisions you are going to make that affect your happiness. What is so important about evolution for the world today, does it help fight climate change, does it help you get a job, does it make you happier, do you honestly feel that without evolution your life would be less fulfilling. Fact is from my perspective evolution is no more important to understand and believe in than particle physics, or single cell biology. End of rant...................

 

[columbus]

What is so important about evolution for the world today,

It is solid proof that Abrahamic religion is fiction made up by primitive people.
People who were quite willing to make claims that are demonstrably false. And the modern people who claim that scripture is true are wrong.
Anything else you want to know?
Tom

 

[Lyndon]

Absolute rubbish, why don't you talk to some Jews about how seriously we are supposed to take the creation story in the Bible, I mean even by the 6000 year garbage, the creation happened 2500 years before written language, and it had NO WITNESSES, not even Adam and Eve, who weren't "created" till the 6th day when creation was finished. The animals were even there before Adam and Eve, If you look intelligently at the creation myth, you would be struck by how close it comes to to the actual order of what came first, light, followed by land, then water, then animals then humans.

That's pretty good for extremely primitive people that have absolutely no understanding of modern science, The beauty of the Genesis creation myth is not how much it gets wrong (which is quite a bit), but rather how much it gets right, given they couldn't possibly know without science which came first; humans, animals, water, earth or light etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolute rubbish, why don't you talk to some Jews about how seriously we are supposed to take the creation story in the Bible, I mean even by the 6000 year garbage, the creation happened 2500 years before written language, and it had NO WITNESSES, not even Adam and Eve, who weren't "created" till the 6th day when creation was finished. The animals were even there before Adam and Eve, If you look intelligently at the creation myth, you would be struck by how close it comes to to the actual order of what came first, light, followed by land, then water, then animals then humans.

That's pretty good for extremely primitive people that have absolutely no understanding of modern science, The beauty of the Genesis creation myth is not how much it gets wrong (which is quite a bit), but rather how much it gets right, given they couldn't possibly know without science which came first; humans, animals, water, earth or light etc.

If an ancient book makes a thousand claims, & some turn out right, is this significant?
Nah. Even a broken clock is typically right twice a day.

 

[metis]

Most of us as Jews take the creation narratives as allegory. It's the teachings found within that are most important.

 

[Lyndon]

If you were to do a survey of primitive cultures creation myths and see which one had the strongest correlation with what we now know about the beginning of the earth and its creatures, I think the Bible would come out more accurate than many, you may not think that is saying much, given how inaccurate all creation myths are, but to a person of faith, it means something, and that's a belief that doesn't deserve to be insulted or ridiculed.

 

[metis]

If you were to do a survey of primitive cultures creation myths and see which one had the strongest correlation with what we now know about the beginning of the earth and its creatures, I think the Bible would come out more accurate than many, you may not think that is saying much, given how inaccurate all creation myths are, but to a person of faith, it means something, and that's a belief that doesn't deserve to be insulted or ridiculed.

The basis of these myths is that God created all in six "days", and yet there's not a single shred of objective-evidence to indicate that this is true. However, if one accepts this may have happened as a part of their belief, no problem.