Proof of evolution -at last-

[Neuropteron]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

 

[F1fan]

I guess sarcasm isn't one of the Seven Deadly sins.

But Creationism ought to be.

 

[Windwalker]

With such a post, all I can say is, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". We tend to protest the loudest against that which we fear to be true the most. God forbid that faith requires us to reexamine our beliefs every now and then!

 

[Twilight Hue]

A true classic diatribe.

 

[Ella S.]

Both Aron Ra and Viced Rhino have lengthy series going into elaborate detail about biological evolution and the evidence for it on YouTube, with the consultation of actual scientists in the field.

Professor Dave has a series on abiogenesis and chemical evolution, which he has studied, and includes interviews with scientists in that field as well as links to relevant papers.

I stress, however, that YouTube is not a good source for these sorts of things. If you're really interested in thoroughly understanding biological evolution, then your best bet is to enroll in a university. A web forum is not the appropriate avenue to seek an education.

 

[YoursTrue]

With such a post, all I can say is, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". We tend to protest the loudest against that which we fear to be true the most. God forbid that faith requires us to reexamine our beliefs every now and then!

Maybe I didn't understand something. The OP was right! In other words, nothing proves evolution. (Thanks.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh. And the fact that certain elements can combine more or less automatically again -- does not prove evolution. Especially of the natural selection kind. It proves (or shows) that certain elements can automatically attract or attach or ignite into something more than the individual elements. (Big deal. OK, it is a big deal. But it's NOT proof of evolution OR abiogenesis. Yes, have a good night.)

 

[sayak83]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

My offer still stands. A joint reading of a good college textbook on evolution and a thematic discussion of the points and objections you have on the topics covered.

 

[F1fan]

Maybe I didn't understand something.

The science.

The OP was right! In other words, nothing proves evolution. (Thanks.)

No the OP is a testimony of a frustrated person who rejects the science of evolution and probably has adopted the religious view of creationism. Evolution is extremely well supported with hundreds of thousands of successful experiments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe I didn't understand something. The OP was right! In other words, nothing proves evolution. (Thanks.)

There is evidence to support evolution. Sorry.

Evidence supports theories and is explained by them, but no evidence is offered as proof of any theory in science.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh. And the fact that certain elements can combine more or less automatically again -- does not prove evolution. Especially of the natural selection kind. It proves (or shows) that certain elements can automatically attract or attach or ignite into something more than the individual elements. (Big deal. OK, it is a big deal. But it's NOT proof of evolution OR abiogenesis. Yes, have a good night.)

Elements combining is chemistry and not explained by the theory of evolution. It would not be used as evidence to support a theory that is about the change in populations over time and not about chemistry.

Once again, there are no proofs in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

Have you found where Darwin formulated the theory of evolution to describe the origin of life? You claimed it was about the origin of life in the other thread?

Have you found evidence showing Darwin formulated his theory based on a belief in the creationist concept of spontaneous generation? You claimed he did.

Did you not understand the idea that science does not use proof?

The pushback you received was based on the errors, unsupported claims and logical fallacies you made and not for any of the reasons you list here.

 

[Valjean]

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Doubt everything -- that's the scientific method. Try to disprove every assertion.
Science goes with the preponderance of tested evidence, but is always open to new evidence.
Holy grails? Let's hope not. New discoveries happen all the time, and sometimes shake things up. Modifying old ideas in the light of new discoveries or tests is how science advances.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

In science, piety and faith are dirty words. The religious often seem to see science in the light of religion, as a comparable and competing doctrine. This leads to misunderstanding.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

We pointed you to evidence, but you seem either to ignore or reject it.
Humility and unquestioned faith may be valued in religion, but in science, it's an impediment.
You would have understood the evidence we linked to. Did you look?

I think what the religious community sees as evidence does not come up to the standards used for scientific analysis.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...
"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

This is what science does, it's how science works. It attacks every new idea or interpretation, tries to disprove them, and invites the whole community to comb the new data for flaws.

When a dozen different disciplines come to the same conclusion, using different data from their different fields of study, it's called consilience. When all attempts to disprove or find flaws in the conclusions fail, and only confirm them, that's pretty convincing evidence.

I've never seen the religious offer any observable, testable evidence for magic poofing, which is what is actually claimed. Their opposition usually consists of attempts to discredit some element of whatever science claims. This, of course, is a false dichotomy strategy. Disproving evolution would not be evidence for creationism.

Science makes the claims, it's science's burden to provide evidence for the claims, and science's method to try to disprove its claims. Only if you make an alternate claim do you assume a burden of proof.

Attacking the facts, analysis and conclusions of science is completely OK, but to do so without criticism or correction from the science side, it helps to understand the data and testing science is working with. This is probably the major objection you've encountered from us.

understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

You're correct. The burden of proof does lay with the scientist to support evolution. Science does that. But if you question one of science's conclusions, it's your burden to support your objection with evidence.

You've made it clear that you're dubious of evolution. Presumably you have an alternate explanation for the observations that led to the ToE. I've asked you about it, but I'm still waiting.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

In real life the majority is usually wrong.
Most people don't form opinions by studying evidence in depth.Most people don't attack their own conclusions, as is mandated in science. They believe what is familiar and comfortable.

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

No Allegiance, please! Scientists hate allegiance -- to anything but observable facts and logic. Science also hates "unquestioning." We want everyone's opinions to be based on critical analysis.
But many people, for whatever reason, don't seem to have learned the facts necessary to analyze, to form a reasonable conclusion within a given field.
That's why we keep steering you to information sources

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

I think you're already on the road with mainstream humanity.
Science cannot substitute for religion. They're completely different things, with completely different methodologies.
Science is an investigative and testing modality that deals with issues of objective fact. Religion deals with values, purpose and propriety. It's when religion begins making assertions about objective facts that difficulties arise.

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Biology is already a real science. It's methodology makes it so.
Biology is not an "imaginative theory." Imaginative theory is an oxymoron. A theory is evidenced, tested and productive.

It's creationism that's imaginative, though not a theory. And when creationists make assertions of objective, physical fact, they've wandered into the domain of science, and need to back up their assertions with actual observations and evidence.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

I also find it deceiving on how so called "Scientists" will make statements that Arti and Lucy is the final fact that humans evolved from hominids. Especially when they dont tell you the "400 discovered fossil specimens" of Ardipithecus are mostly 400 scraps of teeth and bones which they sell as 400 specimens.
They do not tell you the pelvis of Lucy were so crumbled up, and chalky mush, and when these so called "Scientists reconstructed the pelvis, they used 80% imagination to come to the conclusion that Australopiticus walked upright.
They dont tell you that the backbone, and forelimbs shows this not to me true.
They MADE feet of Ardi and Lucy, EXACTLY THE SAME AS HUMAN FEET, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT.
the Laetoli footprints of MODERN HUMAN feet, were just assumed to be that of these extinct apes, whilst there is silence on the fact that these prints are hundreds of miles away from the skeletons discovered by paleontologists.
If you were to listen to these "Scientists" one will think they have silid evidence that man evolved from an early hominid ape like creature, and their published papers and books are so overwelmingly written as to believe it is a proven fact, that anyone can be deceived in believing what they write.
However, when creationist scientists also investigate on these claims, and show these lies and deceit, the evolutionists have only one answer.

Creatinists are not real Scientists!
Wou dont find these evolutionists explaining why they deceived and lied, nope.
they only take a position of authority, and damn any evidence against their claims.

From my side, I do watch evolutionists' videos, and I do the same with what creationists scientists show.

I find it hilarious that the evolutionists nev3er answer the observations on creationists, but simply attack and ignore them.

Thats why I also do not accept evolution.
It is a religion with no evidence.
It is a religion where evolutionists think their children are more human, and their parents more ape, than they.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe I didn't understand something. The OP was right! In other words, nothing proves evolution. (Thanks.)

Nothing proves the Earth is round or that germs cause disease, either. Do you disbelieve these theories, as well?
If you believed only what was proven, rather than what was well evidenced, your mind would be blank.

Q: Is there more evidence for the claims of the Bible, or the claims of biologists?

Oh. And the fact that certain elements can combine more or less automatically again -- does not prove evolution. Especially of the natural selection kind. It proves (or shows) that certain elements can automatically attract or attach or ignite into something more than the individual elements. (Big deal. OK, it is a big deal. But it's NOT proof of evolution OR abiogenesis. Yes, have a good night.)

Nobody ever gets proof of anything outside of mathematics, so why do you keep bringing up proof? Scientists aren't looking for proof, they're looking for evidence. People believe what's evidenced, not what's proven.

You seem to be talking about abiogenisis and chemical evolution, here. This is an entirely different field from biological evolution.

 

[Valjean]

There is evidence to support evolution. Sorry.

Evidence supports theories and is explained by them, but no evidence is offered as proof of any theory in science.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[F1fan]

Creatinists are not real Scientists!

This is the one true thing you posted.

 

[metis]

Evolution stands to our observances and just plain old common sense in that all material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things.

 

[icehorse]

That OP! My my goodness! Such a testament to participating in debates in good faith! To careful listening! To fallacy free responses!

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing proves the Earth is round or that germs cause disease, either. Do you disbelieve these theories, as well?
If you believed only what was proven, rather than what was well evidenced, your mind would be blank.

Q: Is there more evidence for the claims of the Bible, or the claims of biologists?

Nobody ever gets proof of anything outside of mathematics, so why do you keep bringing up proof? Scientists aren't looking for proof, they're looking for evidence. People believe what's evidenced, not what's proven.

You seem to be talking about abiogenisis and chemical evolution, here. This is an entirely different field from biological evolution.

When planes travel "around" the earth, I don't think the pilot sees a flat earth. But perhaps you can explain about rotation. Maybe the moon is flat too in your opinion? Does the Moon Rotate?.