Level of Proof for Evolution

No.That would be contrary to Darwinian theory - specifically and explicitly forbidden by it.

All assumptions of advance knowledge and purpose are creationist, design assumptions.

Again: comprehension of Darwinian theory should precede criticism of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It didn't. Why not read up on it a bit and see what you think. There is an awful lot of confusion about evolution, when the whole thing is based on a few simple, elegant ideas.

Believe me when I say Marshall was saying nothing new. The type of argument he is using, the argument from design, was used in Darwin's time.

Intelligent Design is an expression used by Creationists. You will find no such thing mentioned by evolutionists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It occurs to me that we could start small: what "level of proof" is necessary for people to believe that oak trees grow from acorns ?

We can devide the question into two parts, if people prefer - the "micro" growth, that can be observed in labs and the like, and the "macro" growth, that takes hundreds of years and has never been "observed", in some senses of that word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your just limiting the discussion, forget about your us .vs religion fixation. I am really not interested in it and singling out Christianity is ridiculous considering all the Jewish doctors, surgeons and scientists who would not accept evolution as the only answer either.

 

I didn't single him out. You drew my attntion to him. Had he been a Muslim or a Jew or whatever, do you honestly think I would have responded differently ?

The fact you cannot escape is that virtually all scientists worldwide have no problems with evolutionary theory. If a scientist could find a flaw and support his argument in the customary way, he'd be well on the way to a Nobel prize. Can you imaging a scientist failing to do that . He'd be famous overnight .

I honestly feel you should look into evolutionary theory a bit more and, if you have objections, air them here so we can discuss them

 

I missed that. It would make sense to go there, if there is anythging useful left to say. My own feeling is that we have come to a standstill.

 

Have you ever heard of the Tardigrada? It's a bizarre little phylum of creatures that, when their aquatic habitats dry up, package their proteins in carbohydrates, then dessicate to such an extent that all cellular metabolism turns off. They are totally dead. Caused quite a stir when first discovered. The only known living creature to have died and come back was Jesus.

 

how about Lazarus ?

 

Uhhh.....

 

ok, ok. The thread title is 'level of proof for evolution' however evoltion is already proven, it is the details that are in dispute.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

:shrug:

Can we at least agree on that?

 

No, but you did make this one:

"the eye" evolved?

Do they really? I'd say they don't, really.

 

Why would you say that ?

 

Hey I am just applying common sense here.. I haven't gone into the 'eye matter' so I won't be answering your question.

 

OK, but the "common sense" of calling something that has evolved multiple times, in different taxonomic branches of the animal kingdom, "the eye", has to be given context.

It's like saying "the flagellum", referring to bacteria. Either you don't know there's no such thing, or you're being sloppy, by not contextualising it. I do it too, but it's only OK if you're clear that your talking about a general structure (i.e. all examples). Otherwise it looks like you aren't sure if there is only one kind of "eye", or "flagellum", by not being specific.

Not many people are aware that there is no "eye', there are a lot of parallel evolved examples of the "eye", though.

 

Fraggle,

I am not here to argue just present a viewpoint and not to deny what is obvious.

A theory is NOT proven, because when it is it is no longer a theory but rises to the level of fact.

Fact in science:

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[20]

That is from Wikipedia, feel free to dispute it but your not going to change it. You post has such an air of condescension that i have to ask what was your profession?

 

No.. i was applying common sense to Q's statement. I just told you what he said, that's all.

 

Name one.

 

You are being far too clever. In a forum of this kind where we are talking to people who reject evolution, do you think your form of explanation would be any more convincing?I don't. The detail you are talking about MIGHT be relevant in answering subsequent questions.

Evolutionists talk of "the eye "developing ,in a general sense , and expect to be understood. The do not feel it a requirement to start with the evolutionary advantage of a single light-sensitive cell, talk of genes, gene pools, taxonomy and all the rest.

You know exactly what was meant, as do I. Your suggested approach would simply cause confusion. We have enough of that already.