Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Aset's Flames]

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

I personally see evolution happen in the labatory among bacteria and viruses at work all of the time.

I would suggest for you not to believe everything based on one book.....but that would ironic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I personally see evolution happen in the labatory among bacteria and viruses at work all of the time.

I would suggest for you not to believe everything based on one book.....but that would ironic.

I laughed...

 

[Glaurung]

Does believing in evolution make you a better person

I don't think it has made people any worse.

how important is a belief in evolution to your everyday life

The question itself is pretty mundane. All evolution really says is that the diversity of life is a product of gradual, generational change in biological organisms. This is only threatening for those who cling to the demonstrably untrue claims of religious literalism.

do you need evolution for any decisions you are going to make that affect your happiness.

I really don't see what you're trying to establish here. Evolution is simply the current scientific model which seeks to explain the diversity of biological life. Whether or not you accept it doesn't mean all too much frankly.

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.

What has any of that have to do with biology? The 'debate' is simply about what we can best infer to be true concerning the diversity of life on this planet. It's one small area of knowledge about one question.

Fact is from my perspective evolution is no more important to understand and believe in than particle physics, or single cell biology.

So from your perspective, it's rational to shun any and all knowledge that doesn't carry a strict utility in our daily lives? Actually understanding our world and what is real isn't important to you?

End of rant.

But you have yet to make a real point.

 

[Valjean]

Truth is truth. Convenience, comfort and social implications are irrelevant.

 

[averageJOE]

So, where did the author of the OP go?

 

[Ouroboros]

So, where did the author of the OP go?

Perhaps a post n' run.

 

[outhouse]

So from your perspective, it's rational to shun any and all knowledge that doesn't carry a strict utility in our daily lives? Actually understanding our world and what is real isn't important to you?

Were talking about someone who does not understand the importance of survival.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My science teacher, a Catholic nun named Sister Lucy, told me all about evolution.

 

[columbus]

But you have yet to make a real point.

Yes he has.
Delivering facts, with a garnish of sarcasm, to the True Believer, is rude. Pointing out that they are wrong is giving them low self-esteem. It's just not fair.
Tom

 

[outhouse]

Yes he has.

I think some people are bitter and lonely and would rather play POE all day here putting up communication roadblocks out of boredom.

 

[blueyboy]

So?

Its not required to be observable. Gravity is not particularly observable.

This is written by a believer, one who understands a little about science and theory. It might help you:

http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

 

[leibowde84]

So?

Its not required to be observable. Gravity is not particularly observable.

This is written by a believer, one who understands a little about science and theory. It might help you:

http://www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

Gravity is certainly observable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

As Dawkins said: " it's as if they (Cambrian Explosion fossils) were just planted there with no evolutionary history" yet also: "evolution is a fact"


It's long been a familiar error in atheist academia, taking the most superficial observation (animals have the ability to adapt) and extrapolating that out to a hypothetical final God refuting explanation..

 

[Ouroboros]

Gravity is certainly observable.

Only the effects of it. You don't really see gravity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As Dawkins said: " it's as if they (Cambrian Explosion fossils) were just planted there with no evolutionary history" yet also: "evolution is a fact"


It's long been a familiar error in atheist academia, taking the most superficial observation (animals have the ability to adapt) and extrapolating that out to a hypothetical final God refuting explanation..

It's long been a familiar error for you to quote mine Dawkins in order to take his comments out of context so as to create confusion about what he actually said, which of course, isn't what you are implying.

So here we go again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's long been a familiar error for you to quote mine Dawkins in order to take his comments out of context so as to create confusion about what he actually said, which of course, isn't what you are implying.

So here we go again.

The quote in context if it helps:

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Even less confusing in context isn't it? Dawkins and I agree entirely here. Your argument (once again) would be with him.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The quote in context if it helps:

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Even less confusing in context isn't it? Dawkins and I agree entirely here. Your argument (once again) would be with him.

I've given you the context (hint: it's more than 3 sentences) many times before, thanks.

Please don't play dumb.

 

[David M]

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

No, he does not say that evolution is not observable. Evolution has been observed.

What Coyne is talking about is the stawman of evolution that Creationist talk about, which is why he calls it "so-called macroevolution". It is that level of evolution that is not observable in a single human lifetime (although it is about what is demanded for those who claim that a Noachian Flood happened in recent history).

The book provides a lot of evidence for why the Theory of Evolution is correct.

 

[David M]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Obviously there is still no solid agreement that evolution is a fact not a theory. Remember Einsteins theory of Relativity.

The fact part is that species evolved over millions of years, evidently. The theory part is what made them evolve, with natural selection being one theory, even intelligent design being another.

Nope, the fact part is that Evolution (Changes in allele frequencies is populations over time) is an observed fact.

So yes there is solid agreement that evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains why that fact happens.

 

[Lyndon]

Isn't that what I just said in the quote you posted.