Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

Yeah, why don't you starty by providing a definition of "direct evidence"?

I'm still waiting...

The above examples should suffice.

Once again you go into denial.

While I wait, think of this:

You are claiming that the only good evidence is direct evidence. In the courtroom, direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, photographs or video footage. Everything else is indirect evidence (DNA, a murder weapon, fingerprints, blood spatters, motive, allabies, etc.).

Think of this.
The function of a court room is to settle disputes of human action. DNA, murder weapon, blood spLatter, motives, alIbies etc are not human actions, like stealing, lying, killing, raping etc.
So it depends on what you want to prove. If you want to prove that such human action did occur, you would need eye testimony.
My dear goat we are not dealing with human actions, we are talking about science. A subject that you have NO clue of. In science, we are not trying to prove or disprove "actions", so "eye witness" testimony is not grounds for "direct evidence". Which is why the above examples are considered "direct evidence" because there is little room for "inference". Ops, I used a big word.
So in evolution when I ask you for direct evidence, you have to provide of evolution "as it occurs". Not evidence of it's "alleged" occurance. Even then, the fossil record disproves evolution. And you have admitted that the theory of evolution has been disproved. Thus your only qualms is that it should be still accepted as a fact of evolution, even though there is no evidence of it.

When you advocate the position that evolution is not science without seeing it directly, you are also saying that a prosecutor cannot find out who killed their victim unless they saw it happen.
Do you really believe this?

False analogy son.
Science =/= Judiciary Court.
The institution of science has it's own methodology and they are nothing like the institution of "man made laws". However, science does strictly deal with observation and facts, but the court law is not based on "observation" but only disputes between individuals and parties.

That's not visual confirmation of atomic structures with our own naked eyes, that's an emission spectrum.

Yes it is my goat. It is. Ever heard of a cathod ray? Same concept.

You can't see atomic structures directly, because they're too small to see.

lol... very funny goat. What is this statement have to do with anything?

The emission spectrum is in fact the perfect example of indirect evidence.

The emission spectrum is direct evidence, as it shows direct signs of the different levels of energy that electrons orbit around the nucleas of an atom. The emissions are photons emitted DIRECTLY by the atoms as they are excited.
Get it? "as they are occuring"

this is why your court room analogy doesn't work, because the crime doesn't happen IN THE COURT room in front of the judge..it already happened..so only those present there could account for it because they were there as it occured. But science...we have a LABORATORY. There is no direct evidence of evolution. Get it goat?

Read this:





Ah, so we can only observe them using indirect evidence. Yet you still agree that they exist!

If you agree that black holes exist on the background of indirect evidence, then you must also agree that evolution exists on the background of indirect evidence!

do you now understand why what I showed you is called "direct" evidence". Because scientist saw the formation of a black hole from a super nova...as it occured.
Get it?

I know you are slow...it's ok. I am patient. I will explain it another 50 times too if I have to.

That's not something you can observe with the naked eye, you still have to use tools to observe it.



But I've never seen the electricity running through my computer, according to you that must mean there is no electricity.

Oh you haven't seen it run through your computer?

Ok. Do this experiment. there is this cord behind your computer and its thick and it runs to this other thingy with lots of holes in it. Pull it out of it. Ok? See goat...that is called an "electric" plug. Oh you don't believe there is electricity in your electric plug? Ok. I can make you experience it? Take a fork, and stick it in your plug. Wiggle it around. Yes goat. Keep doing it....almost! NICE!

Yeah, and that's what we call indirect evidence, not direct evidence.

We can't directly observe relativity, but using tools and conducting experiments we can indirectly produce evidence that substantiate it.

tsk tsk tsk ....


I know you just went on google and typed "direct evidence" and based this whole post of yours on what you found. But the internet can't make you smart...it can just feed your delusions like so. That poster you posted...it befits you son.

That's not direct evidence, that's indirect evidence in the form of a coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of a chromosome.

We can't see a chromosome, or DNA with the naked eye. We have to use tools to observe them.

And just to reiterate:

Evidence:
1. Living things come from living things. (never observed anything else)
2. Living things are different from each other (e.g. unicellular organisms are different from vertebrates)
3. Some kinds of living things existed on Earth before other kinds (e.g. unicellular organisms existed on Earth billions of years before vertebrates, see fossil record)

Conclusion:
Thus, scientifically, the "other kinds of living things" (e.g. vertebrates) must have come from the "former kinds living things" (e.g. unicellular organisms)

.

This is not science. It's speculation.

Goat.


At this point we have to test your intelligence. Since you have refused to tell us what your qualifications are ...You must show that you are atleast a human and not a goat:


Free IQ Test - Fast, Free and Accurate Online IQ Test


If you score below 100. You are not fit to be on this thread.

Please stop wasting everyone's time.


All that you call 'evidence' have been disproved already.
To say that unicellular organisms preceded vertebrates, and thus were originals of vertebrates is fallacious. Deceitful. Delusional. Ignorant. Stupid. Goat-headed.


Thank you for proving that proponents of evolution are idiots.

[Alchemist]

Is Evolution Science?

Show me the scientific proof for Evolution.

The onus is on you to prove that it has been empirically proved.

And then I will show you all the arguments against it.


But before we proceed further. Let me make it clear.

Evolution was first propounded by Charles Darwin in his book "Origin of Species."
The mechanism for speciation has been dubbed "natural selection".

So in order for you to prove evolution, you must show proof of speciation. That random mutations can derive beneficial traits to an organism.

[graveyardofempires]

no
its a myth=theory

[طالب]

The above examples should suffice.

Once again you go into denial.

No, they don’t, that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you for a definition. If you don’t define the terms, we might as well be talking about apples and oranges.

Giving examples is not enough.

Think of this.

The function of a court room is to settle disputes of human action. DNA, murder weapon, blood spLatter, motives, alIbies etc are not human actions, like stealing, lying, killing, raping etc.
So it depends on what you want to prove. If you want to prove that such human action did occur, you would need eye testimony.
My dear goat we are not dealing with human actions, we are talking about science. A subject that you have NO clue of. In science, we are not trying to prove or disprove "actions", so "eye witness" testimony is not grounds for "direct evidence".

Again, that depends on what you mean by direct evidence. You haven’t defined direct evidence so I could never know what direct evidence means in your world.

I’ll tell you what, since you refuse to provide definitions, I’ll provide the scientific definitions for you:

Direct evidence for a conclusion are facts that establish the conclusion without any need for drawing inferences. If we look at it strictly, something that scientists usually don’t do, eye witness testimony of the conclusion is the only direct evidence. So you are wrong when you say that eye witness testimony is not grounds for direct evidence. What does eye testimony mean? It means that somebody has observed the conclusion that we are trying to establish.

All other evidence is indirect evidence. Just about all scientific theories, except for the simplest ones, are established indirectly. Examples: that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, that hydrogen exists on the sun, that Earth has an iron core, pretty much everything we know about atoms (http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html, this guy is an expert in the field, he knows what he’s talking about), HIV causes AIDS, cigarette smoke causes cancer etc.

Now your proposition is this: “if a theory does not have direct evidence to support it, it is not science”. This is completely wrong.

There is nothing wrong with drawing (correct) inferences from data and because we can falsify the theories by making predictions based on the indirect evidence we can actually test the theories.

Again, the perfect example is atoms. Just about everything we know about atoms is from indirect evidence, now you wouldn’t start saying atoms are not scientific, would you?

But at the end of the day, this whole direct/indirect evidence distinction doesn’t matter. What matters is the accuracy of the predictions you’ve made based on the combination of evidence that you have (regardless of the type) and the hypotheses and theories you’ve induced from that evidence.

If the prediction turns out to be correct, then the evidence is good enough for science, no matter if it is direct or indirect.

This whole direct/indirect evidence that you’ve brought up simply goes to show that you don’t have a clue how science works. There are tons of scientific theories that we don’t have visual confirmation of, but are still accepted by everyone.

Which is why the above examples are considered "direct evidence" because there is little room for "inference".

It all depends on what conclusion you’re trying to reach. For example, showing an emission spectrum as evidence of atoms is probably not direct evidence because you need some inferences to get from spectra to atoms and molecules. And when I asked about magnetism, you showed a piece of paper with iron filings on it. That’s indirect evidence as well, because we can’t actually see the magnetic force itself, rather we’re looking at the iron filings and infer that they align themselves because of magnetism.

But again, this whole debate is useless, because

1. Direct evidence is not required for a theory to be scientific, rather what matter is that we can make predictions based on evidence (whatever type of evidence that is) and test and falsify those predictions.
2. We can talk from now on and until the last day on what is and isn’t direct evidence because we don’t agree on the definitions.

So in evolution when I ask you for direct evidence, you have to provide of evolution "as it occurs". Not evidence of it's "alleged" occurance.

Yeah, that would be direct evidence. But direct evidence is not required for evolution to be scientific. E.g. we know that atoms exist yet we don’t have direct evidence to show it, or we know that smoking causes cancer, yet we don’t have direct evidence to show it.

What matters is predictions and testing, and we can make predictions using the FoE and test those predictions.

Even then, the fossil record disproves evolution.

Wrong, the fossil record shows unicellular organisms existing billions of years before vertebrates, that is definite evidence that evolution did, in fact, occur.

And you have admitted that the theory of evolution has been disproved.

No, I’ve stated that the FoE does not rely on the ToE and that some aspects of the ToE are being discussed.

Thus your only qualms is that it should be still accepted as a fact of evolution, even though there is no evidence of it.

Wrong on both accounts, I’m arguing the case for the FoE, not the ToE, and I have stated evidence throughout this thread that substantiates the FoE.

Science =/= Judiciary Court.

This is true in the sense that the distinction between direct and indirect evidence in science is not really that strict. But if we use the strict definitions, then the analogy holds up.

The institution of science has it's own methodology and they are nothing like the institution of "man made laws". However, science does strictly deal with observation and facts, but the court law is not based on "observation" but only disputes between individuals and parties.

Are you kidding me? Decisions in court are “not based on observation”?

Eyewitness testimony is observations. And what about DNA tests, finger prints etc.? Those are all observations. This is ridiculous, you have no idea of how a court works. I’m amazed because we have all these court dramas on TV, yet you must’ve somehow managed to never see a single one. Have you ever heard of evidence in a court of law? Do exhibits ring a bell?

If somebody was found lying on the ground with several stab wounds and no weapon in sight, would you rule out murder because nobody saw it happen?

I sure wouldn’t want to be tried in court that didn’t use evidence!

Yes it is my goat. It is. Ever heard of a cathod ray? Same concept.

I believe both of those are examples of indirect evidence because we have to make inferences to go from the emission spectrum or cathode ray to the concept of atoms.

And I’m not alone, as stated here http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html.

But even if disagree with every scientist on Earth on what is and isn’t direct evidence, it doesn’t really matter because direct evidence is not required for something to be science.

In other words, it’s a red herring.

lol... very funny goat. What is this statement have to do with anything?

Very simple, direct evidence of an atom would include us being able to actually see the atom. Yet we can’t do that. Instead we have to rely on indirect evidence to substantiate the nature of atoms.

The emission spectrum is direct evidence, as it shows direct signs of the different levels of energy that electrons orbit around the nucleas of an atom.

The emissions are photons emitted DIRECTLY by the atoms as they are excited.
Get it? "as they are occuring"[/quote]

But those are all inferences. You infer that the photons are emitted by atoms or molecules. You can’t actually see the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom.

You can ask any scientists in any field, they will all tell you that direct evidence is not needed for a theory to be considered scientific.

You don’t have to believe me, believe Brian Kross, a Chief Detector Engineer at the Jefferson Lab:

Pretty much everything we know about atoms is indirect evidence. One can't really see atoms. We do see enough of their effects that we can, with confidence, describe the nature of atoms. Here at Jefferson Lab we have quite a few instruments to measure the properties and behavior of atoms. We use a few simple tricks to measure atoms. The most common method is to shoot the atoms through an easy-to-ionize gas or liquid. Argon is the most common that we use. As the atoms or even pieces of atoms fly through the gas electrons are stripped off of them and are left behind. We drift those loose electrons to a collection device, a wire or panel, and measure the charge. It is a little more complex than that, but it works well enough that we get consistent results. It's like putting together a puzzle that's missing some pieces. If you get enough pieces in the right place you can tell what the picture is even though it still has holes.

It can always be debated whether or not evidence is direct or indirect, but the fact remains that it doesn’t matter. A theory is not considered scientific based on whether or not it has direct evidence to prove it, it is considered scientific based on the predictions it makes based on whatever type of evidence is used, and whether those predictions can be tested and falsified.

The FoE holds up perfectly to that standard, which is why it is indeed scientific.

this is why your court room analogy doesn't work, because the crime doesn't happen IN THE COURT room in front of the judge..it already happened..so only those present there could account for it because they were there as it occured. But science...we have a LABORATORY. There is no direct evidence of evolution. Get it goat?

Your definition of science is flawed.

A theory does not have to be tested in a laboratory “in front of our eyes as it occurs” in order to be scientific. What matters is that you can falsify the theory by making accurate predictions from evidence and that those predictions can be tested.

Fortunately, you can make predictions using the FoE and those predictions are indeed testable and have time and time again proven to be correct.

Whether the evidence provided is direct or indirect really is irrelevant and a red herring. There are many theories which are not supported by direct evidence but are still scientific.

From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4]

do you now understand why what I showed you is called "direct" evidence". Because scientist saw the formation of a black hole from a super nova...as it occured.

Scientists don’t really use the terms direct and indirect evidence strictly. That’s why some might say that it is direct evidence while others disagree. First of all, a theory can be scientific without it having direct evidence, and second I think it is indirect evidence because what they observed was X-ray outburst events. They inferred fromthose outburst events that they were looking at a black hole. They didn’t actually see it happen because it is too far away.

But again, we will always have differing opinions on what is and isn’t direct evidence. Fortunately whether the evidence is direct or indirect doesn’t matter in regards to the scientific nature of a theory.

Oh you haven't seen it run through your computer?

Ok. Do this experiment. there is this cord behind your computer and its thick and it runs to this other thingy with lots of holes in it. Pull it out of it. Ok? See goat...that is called an "electric" plug. Oh you don't believe there is electricity in your electric plug?

I can’t actually see the electricity, I’m inferring electricity runs through the power cables and through my monitor.

Even though I can’t see the electricity itself running through my computer, we all know that it is, in fact there.

This is not science. It's speculation.

The fact that you bring up this whole debate about direct and indirect evidence just goes to show that you have no idea what science is. I recommend you start by reading this article in order to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

In conclusion:
1. Whether evidence that substantiates a theory is classified as direct or indirect evidence does not have a bearing on the scientific nature of that theory.
2. Instead, a theory is scientific if it organizes knowledge/observations/evidence (all types, direct or indirect) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

The second point is based on the definition of science given by Wikipedia. If you have another definition then please state it and furthermore back it up with a source.

[طالب]

Why do you start a new thread on the exact same subject, proclaiming the exact same falsehoods that we're discussing in the other thread on evolution?

There is no need to make duplicate threads on the subject, I'm going to recommend a merge...

[ScimitarXEdge]

so many false dichotomies and straw men, so little time

He's worse than Christian Creationists; and to think I gave this guy an endorsement. I never realized he could be this daft.

[Alchemist]

Why do you start a new thread on the exact same subject, proclaiming the exact same falsehoods that we're discussing in the other thread on evolution?

There is no need to make duplicate threads on the subject, I'm going to recommend a merge...

so many false dichotomies and straw men, so little time

He's worse than Christian Creationists; and to think I gave this guy an endorsement. I never realized he could be this daft.

Excellent rebuttals.

I am speechless

[Alchemist]

No, they don’t, that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you for a definition. If you don’t define the terms, we might as well be talking about apples and oranges.

Giving examples is not enough.




Again, that depends on what you mean by direct evidence. You haven’t defined direct evidence so I could never know what direct evidence means in your world.

I’ll tell you what, since you refuse to provide definitions, I’ll provide the scientific definitions for you:

Direct evidence for a conclusion are facts that establish the conclusion without any need for drawing inferences. If we look at it strictly, something that scientists usually don’t do, eye witness testimony of the conclusion is the only direct evidence. So you are wrong when you say that eye witness testimony is not grounds for direct evidence. What does eye testimony mean? It means that somebody has observed the conclusion that we are trying to establish.

All other evidence is indirect evidence. Just about all scientific theories, except for the simplest ones, are established indirectly. Examples: that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, that hydrogen exists on the sun, that Earth has an iron core, pretty much everything we know about atoms (http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html, this guy is an expert in the field, he knows what he’s talking about), HIV causes AIDS, cigarette smoke causes cancer etc.

Now your proposition is this: “if a theory does not have direct evidence to support it, it is not science”. This is completely wrong.

There is nothing wrong with drawing (correct) inferences from data and because we can falsify the theories by making predictions based on the indirect evidence we can actually test the theories.

Again, the perfect example is atoms. Just about everything we know about atoms is from indirect evidence, now you wouldn’t start saying atoms are not scientific, would you?

But at the end of the day, this whole direct/indirect evidence distinction doesn’t matter. What matters is the accuracy of the predictions you’ve made based on the combination of evidence that you have (regardless of the type) and the hypotheses and theories you’ve induced from that evidence.

If the prediction turns out to be correct, then the evidence is good enough for science, no matter if it is direct or indirect.

This whole direct/indirect evidence that you’ve brought up simply goes to show that you don’t have a clue how science works. There are tons of scientific theories that we don’t have visual confirmation of, but are still accepted by everyone.



It all depends on what conclusion you’re trying to reach. For example, showing an emission spectrum as evidence of atoms is probably not direct evidence because you need some inferences to get from spectra to atoms and molecules. And when I asked about magnetism, you showed a piece of paper with iron filings on it. That’s indirect evidence as well, because we can’t actually see the magnetic force itself, rather we’re looking at the iron filings and infer that they align themselves because of magnetism.

But again, this whole debate is useless, because

1. Direct evidence is not required for a theory to be scientific, rather what matter is that we can make predictions based on evidence (whatever type of evidence that is) and test and falsify those predictions.
2. We can talk from now on and until the last day on what is and isn’t direct evidence because we don’t agree on the definitions.



Yeah, that would be direct evidence. But direct evidence is not required for evolution to be scientific. E.g. we know that atoms exist yet we don’t have direct evidence to show it, or we know that smoking causes cancer, yet we don’t have direct evidence to show it.

What matters is predictions and testing, and we can make predictions using the FoE and test those predictions.



Wrong, the fossil record shows unicellular organisms existing billions of years before vertebrates, that is definite evidence that evolution did, in fact, occur.



No, I’ve stated that the FoE does not rely on the ToE and that some aspects of the ToE are being discussed.



Wrong on both accounts, I’m arguing the case for the FoE, not the ToE, and I have stated evidence throughout this thread that substantiates the FoE.



This is true in the sense that the distinction between direct and indirect evidence in science is not really that strict. But if we use the strict definitions, then the analogy holds up.



Are you kidding me? Decisions in court are “not based on observation”?

Eyewitness testimony is observations. And what about DNA tests, finger prints etc.? Those are all observations. This is ridiculous, you have no idea of how a court works. I’m amazed because we have all these court dramas on TV, yet you must’ve somehow managed to never see a single one. Have you ever heard of evidence in a court of law? Do exhibits ring a bell?

If somebody was found lying on the ground with several stab wounds and no weapon in sight, would you rule out murder because nobody saw it happen?

I sure wouldn’t want to be tried in court that didn’t use evidence!



I believe both of those are examples of indirect evidence because we have to make inferences to go from the emission spectrum or cathode ray to the concept of atoms.

And I’m not alone, as stated here http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html.

But even if disagree with every scientist on Earth on what is and isn’t direct evidence, it doesn’t really matter because direct evidence is not required for something to be science.

In other words, it’s a red herring.



Very simple, direct evidence of an atom would include us being able to actually see the atom. Yet we can’t do that. Instead we have to rely on indirect evidence to substantiate the nature of atoms.



The emissions are photons emitted DIRECTLY by the atoms as they are excited.
Get it? "as they are occuring"

But those are all inferences. You infer that the photons are emitted by atoms or molecules. You can’t actually see the electrons orbiting around the nucleus of an atom.

You can ask any scientists in any field, they will all tell you that direct evidence is not needed for a theory to be considered scientific.

You don’t have to believe me, believe Brian Kross, a Chief Detector Engineer at the Jefferson Lab:



It can always be debated whether or not evidence is direct or indirect, but the fact remains that it doesn’t matter. A theory is not considered scientific based on whether or not it has direct evidence to prove it, it is considered scientific based on the predictions it makes based on whatever type of evidence is used, and whether those predictions can be tested and falsified.

The FoE holds up perfectly to that standard, which is why it is indeed scientific.



Your definition of science is flawed.

A theory does not have to be tested in a laboratory “in front of our eyes as it occurs” in order to be scientific. What matters is that you can falsify the theory by making accurate predictions from evidence and that those predictions can be tested.

Fortunately, you can make predictions using the FoE and those predictions are indeed testable and have time and time again proven to be correct.

Whether the evidence provided is direct or indirect really is irrelevant and a red herring. There are many theories which are not supported by direct evidence but are still scientific.

From Wikipedia:





Scientists don’t really use the terms direct and indirect evidence strictly. That’s why some might say that it is direct evidence while others disagree. First of all, a theory can be scientific without it having direct evidence, and second I think it is indirect evidence because what they observed was X-ray outburst events. They inferred fromthose outburst events that they were looking at a black hole. They didn’t actually see it happen because it is too far away.

But again, we will always have differing opinions on what is and isn’t direct evidence. Fortunately whether the evidence is direct or indirect doesn’t matter in regards to the scientific nature of a theory.



I can’t actually see the electricity, I’m inferring electricity runs through the power cables and through my monitor.

Even though I can’t see the electricity itself running through my computer, we all know that it is, in fact there.



The fact that you bring up this whole debate about direct and indirect evidence just goes to show that you have no idea what science is. I recommend you start by reading this article in order to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

In conclusion:
1. Whether evidence that substantiates a theory is classified as direct or indirect evidence does not have a bearing on the scientific nature of that theory.
2. Instead, a theory is scientific if it organizes knowledge/observations/evidence (all types, direct or indirect) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

The second point is based on the definition of science given by Wikipedia. If you have another definition then please state it and furthermore back it up with a source.

You are confusing your self goat.
You are the one who keeps thinking that only being able to see something with the naked eye means "direct evidence" which is why you keep dismissing direct evidences for the example. So in conclusion, direct evidence doesn't mean that you have to be able to see with naked eye.

I already did give you a definition but I forgot that you are mentally challenged and need me to highlight and draw stars and arrows with big bolded colours to let you know when I was defining:

So in evolution when I ask you for direct evidence, you have to provide of evolution "as it occurs".

Goat have you observed speciation? Why not?
Have you seen one animal kind turn into another animal kind?
Where is the evidence for that? And by direct evidence I mean in a laboratory setting. Not fossil records, which have no proof at all. fossils are only left overs of some dead animals or plants. It doesn't show "Transition" from one form into another form. Nor can we assess the physiology or complexity of those extinct creatures, we can only guess if they are of two different species.

Show me where evolution made a prediction and it was proven right!
This is your next assignment. If you do this. You win.

And lastly, define what a species is.

[طالب]

You are confusing your self goat.

You are the one who keeps thinking that only being able to see something with the naked eye means "direct evidence" which is why you keep dismissing direct evidences for the example. So in conclusion, direct evidence doesn't mean that you have to be able to see with naked eye.

No, in conclusion there is no set definition of direct evidence, instead scientists use it in a less strict way.

But really, it doesn't matter, because the type of evidence does not a scientific theory make.

Goat have you observed speciation? Why not?

Have you seen one animal kind turn into another animal kind?

Irrelevant to the case for the FoE as pointed out in earlier posts, i.e. how the process happened is another discussion/visual confirmation not required for theory to be science.

Where is the evidence for that? And by direct evidence I mean in a laboratory setting.

Science does not limit itself to evidence from a laboratory setting, so why should I when arguing my case for the FoE? I'm arguing that the FoE is scientific, not that it conforms to whatever standards you have.

Not fossil records, which have no proof at all. fossils are only left overs of some dead animals or plants.

Fossils are all I need. I have fossils of billion year old unicellular organisms and I have fossils of vertebrates dating back to 500 million years. That's evidence that organisms evolved, in conjunction with my 1. and 2. proposition.

Show me where evolution made a prediction and it was proven right!

This is your next assignment. If you do this. You win.

Ah perfect!

The FoE predicts that every time we make an excavation, the fossil will match other fossils of that period. For example, if we conduct an excavation and find a vertebrate, it will always date back around 500 million years and no further. If we, for example, found a vertebrate fossil dating back 1 billion years, the FoE would be proven wrong!

So every time we make an excavation we are in fact testing the FoE! All it takes is one fossil out of place and it all comes crashing down!

But we have not yet found one single such fossil! We have never found a vertebrate dating before billions of years, or even a vertebrate that dates back before invertebrates!

Do I win now? Oh wait, I forgot for a moment who I was talking to...

And lastly, define what a species is.

Why do you keep asking this question? Do you disagree that there is a difference between unicellular organisms and vertebrates? No, you don't, so why do you keep asking about the definition of species? It has no bearing whatsoever on the FoE.

[Alchemist]

No, in conclusion there is no set definition of direct evidence, instead scientists use it in a less strict way.

But really, it doesn't matter, because the type of evidence does not a scientific theory make.




Irrelevant to the case for the FoE as pointed out in earlier posts, i.e. how the process happened is another discussion/visual confirmation not required for theory to be science.



Science does not limit itself to evidence from a laboratory setting, so why should I when arguing my case for the FoE? I'm arguing that the FoE is scientific, not that it conforms to whatever standards you have.



Fossils are all I need. I have fossils of billion year old unicellular organisms and I have fossils of vertebrates dating back to 500 million years. That's evidence that organisms evolved, in conjunction with my 1. and 2. proposition.

[COLOR=black]

Ah perfect!

The FoE predicts that every time we make an excavation, the fossil will match other fossils of that period. For example, if we conduct an excavation and find a vertebrate, it will always date back around 500 million years and no further. If we, for example, found a vertebrate fossil dating back 1 billion years, the FoE would be proven wrong!

So every time we make an excavation we are in fact testing the FoE! All it takes is one fossil out of place and it all comes crashing down!

But we have not yet found one single such fossil! We have never found a vertebrate dating before billions of years, or even a vertebrate that dates back before invertebrates!

Do I win now? Oh wait, I forgot for a moment who I was talking to...

[COLOR=black]



Why do you keep asking this question? Do you disagree that there is a difference between unicellular organisms and vertebrates? No, you don't, so why do you keep asking about the definition of species? It has no bearing whatsoever on the FoE.

fossil excavation is not what is meant by "Testable".
Excavation and Archeology are not scientific methods my dear.
I asked you for scientific proofs and you keep saying fossil record.
You posted wikipedia's page on what science is and laugh at me ...then when I ask you for scientific proof, you say "fossil record"? Are you mad?

Didn't you know? vertebrate fossils make only .01% of the total fossil record. 95% of the fossil record is composed of marine invertebrate and the rest plants and algea, so what does that say? How is your assertion suppose to be testable my dear goat?

Furthermore, did you forget how kept singing for 3 weeks straight that invertebrates preceeded vertebrates by 1.5 to 3 billions years until after much head bumping I was able to convince you that the gap between invertebrates to vertebrates is actually 2 to 3 million in the fossil record...but you kept saying that invertebrates became vertebrates over a long period of time. Now you are saying that unicellular life dates back 2.7 billion years, but so what? Does that mean that unicellular life turned into BOTH vertebrates AND invertebrates?

However my dear, you also forget that Evolution did make a prediction that FAILED. Evolution predicted that it would find thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. To date the number of transitional forms found has been ZERO!

If we go by what you say, evolution failed. But you keep insisting that evolution is a fact...and when pressed for proof, you go circularly back and say "because it is fact, no proof or evidence is required"...then when I say it is not a science...you say "it is a science because it has made the prediction that vertebrates did not exist prior to 500 million years ago" So what?...neither did invertebrates! You say unicellular organisms did ...but there is no definitive proof because all you had were stromatolites which possibly could be "abiogenic" in origin. Therefore, you have yet to present even one shred of evidence in support of evolution. All you have is speculation and guess work. Is that suppose to be science? Why can't you produce evolution in a laboratory setting? Why can't you change one species into another one? This is why I am asking you for the definition of species.

Thank you. Please Try again.

p.s- i find it difficult to take you serious when in every post you keep putting emoticons to express your feelings. Makes me feel like I am arguing with a 12 year old. Not that there is anything wrong with that...and in fact I wish you were 12 years old because that would excuse the slowness of your wits. But still, at least pretend to be on par with me here ; )

p.p.s - Go read over my posts again, where did I ever ask for "Visual confirmation"...yet you wasted 1000 words on just trying to convince me that visual confirmation is not necessary...you are the one who thought it was ...and now you are saying it's not ...it's like you are arguing with your self like a mad man but realizing it not...take it easy goat.

[طالب]

fossil excavation is not what is meant by "Testable".
Excavation and Archeology are not scientific methods my dear.

Wrong. Every time we start a fossil excavation we are in fact conducting an experiment. If the fossils turn out to not fit in with our predictions, then our theory is proved wrong. You have a very incorrect view of science if you believe experiments are only carried out in laboratories.

From Wikipedia:

Experiments
Main article: Experiment

Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing. The experimental control is a technique for dealing with observational error. This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions, to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed. Mill's canons can then help us figure out what the important factor is.[63] Factor analysis is one technique for discovering the important factor in an effect.

Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes. It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting, a double-blind study or an archaeological excavation. Even taking a plane from New York to Paris is an experiment which tests the aerodynamical hypotheses used for constructing the plane.

Scientists assume an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results. Traces of this tradition can be seen in the work of Hipparchus (190-120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth, while controlled experiments can be seen in the works of Muslim scientists such as Jābir ibn Hayyān (721-815 CE), al-Battani (853–929) and Alhacen (965-1039).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...od#Experiments

I asked you for scientific proofs and you keep saying fossil record.

No, the fossil record is evidence. Evidence is needed to substantiate the theory.

Here's the question though, what is a "scientific proof"? In fact there is no proof in science, only theories. Sometimes the term proof will be used in the scientific context, but not in the sense that a theory is 100% correct. Rather, in science, the term implies that a theory is "strongly supported by scientific means". A theory in science is never true beyond any doubt.

Thus, it is actually quite careless to use the term proof in science, instead it should be relegated solely to the realm of logic and mathematics.

In other words, this is not religion, it is science.

You posted wikipedia's page on what science is and laugh at me ...then when I ask you for scientific proof, you say "fossil record"?

You stated that a theory is not scientific unless the evidence provided is "direct evidence", whatever that means (it means different things to different scientists. E.g. some scientists accept electron microscope pictures as direct evidence, while others say it is indirect).

In response to that statement I quoted Wikipedia which makes clear that whether evidence is direct or not is not an indicator is to the scientific nature of theory. Rather what matters is that your theory organizes knowledge (all kinds of evidence) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

I then stated that the FoE does, in fact, organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world and is thus scientific.

The knowledge, or evidence if you will, that it organizes is that living things come from living things, that different living things exist (e.g. unicellular organisms and vertebrates) and that some living things existed before other living things (this is evidence by the fossil record).

Thus the fossil record is part of the evidence for the FoE.

Didn't you know? vertebrate fossils make only .01% of the total fossil record. 95% of the fossil record is composed of marine invertebrate and the rest plants and algea, so what does that say?

First of all, you don't provide a source for your claim, so I doubt whether that figure is correct.

Second, if correct, it simply means that vertebrate fossils do not make up a majority of the fossil record. So what? All you need is one vertebrate fossil dating back a billion years. Or a vertebrate fossil dating back before the earliest invertebrate fossil. But you do not have a single one.

In the case that you do have one, please post the source.

How is your assertion suppose to be testable

Very simply like this: The FoE asserts that organisms develop into other, significantly different organisms. We can use this to make a prediction: the prediction is that the fossils that we find will not be scattered randomly throughout the age of the Earth. E.g., we will not suddenly find a billion year old vertebrate, but only billion year old unicellular organisms. We will not find a vertebrate dating back before an invertebrate. First we will have unicellular organisms, then invertebrates appear and then vertebrates.

And we can test this prediction by making excavations. Every time we dig up a fossil, we are in fact testing the FoE. Because if we were to dig up a vertebrate, that was dated back 3 billion years (or 2, or 1) then the FoE would be false, because that evidence would run contrary what we predicted.

Yet for all the thousands of fossils we've dug up, not a single one runs contrary to the FoE.

Furthermore, did you forget how kept singing for 3 weeks straight that invertebrates preceeded vertebrates by 1.5 to 3 billions years until after much head bumping I was able to convince you that the gap between invertebrates to vertebrates is actually 2 to 3 million in the fossil record...

Not really. The earliest invertebrate dates from 665-542 million years ago (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#..._fossil_record). The earliest vertebrate is thought to be the Myllokunmingia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myllokunmingia) dated 524 million years ago.

That's a gap of 18-141 million years, not 2-3.

So invertebrates still predate vertebrates, perhaps by over a 100 million years.

And unicellular organism? It's not even a discussion, they predate both invertebrates and vertebrates by billions of years.

All of this is in perfect accordance with the FoE. Now if you found a vertebrate dating back a billion years? Or an invertebrate dating back 4 billion years? Yeah that would break the FoE.

Fortunately, we haven't.

Now you are saying that unicellular life dates back 2.7 billion years, but so what? Does that mean that unicellular life turned into BOTH vertebrates AND invertebrates?

It means that unicellular organisms must have developed into organisms significantly different from them. Whether they evolved into one or the other, or both, is really irrelevant to the case for the FoE.

The fact that we have, for example, vertebrates dating back only 523 million years, while we have unicellular organisms dating back billions of years, must mean that those unicellular organisms, somehow, developed into vertebrates. If they evolved into invertebrates first or directly into vertebrates or whatever is another discussion, one of how the process happened.

Scientifically those invertebrates and vertebrates did not simply pop *poof* out of thin air you know. We know that living things come from living things though so they must have come from earlier living organisms, i.e. unicellular organisms.

How it happened is another discussion.

However my dear, you also forget that Evolution did make a prediction that FAILED. Evolution predicted that it would find thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. To date the number of transitional forms found has been ZERO!

1. That's not a prediction of the FoE. The FoE does not state anything about transitional fossils hence this is completely irrelevant to the case for the FoE.

2. You are wrong, read: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

3. Since your objection is irrelevant to the FoE I will not pursue this matter further.

...and when pressed for proof, you go circularly back and say "because it is fact, no proof or evidence is required"

You are a liar. I've never stated that which you've put in quotation marks and I dare you to find a single post in which I have.

I have given evidence; that living things come from living things, that living things are different from each other, from the fossil record.

Answer me this, is lying considered good behavior for a Muslim? If not, why do you engage in such behavior?

...then when I say it is not a science...you say "it is a science because it has made the prediction that vertebrates did not exist prior to 500 million years ago" So what?...neither did invertebrates!

Actually, they both did, but they didn't exist billions of years ago.

Evolution does make the prediction that we will not find vertebrate fossils dating back before invertebrates or unicellular organisms, or invertebrate fossils dating back before unicellular organisms.

The fact that invertebrates didn't exist billions of years ago does not run contrary to the FoE. In fact it supports the FoE.

The FoE would not be able to explain if we found million celled invertebrate fossils predating unicellular organisms. But we haven't.

You say unicellular organisms did ...but there is no definitive proof because all you had were stromatolites which possibly could be "abiogenic" in origin.

Again, this is not true. First I showed you some stromatolites, then you posted one scientific article in which they adviced caution when ascertaining the biogenicity of those stromatolites, contrary to microfossils which would they stated would be definitely biogenetic.

I then showed you microfossils from the Bitter Springs Chert which are dated back about 1 billion years. Microfossils that your source admitted were definitely biogenetic.

You never responded to those fossils.

Also, in the article you posted, they only adviced caution, they never said that all precambrian stromatolites were abiogenetic. But this is what you try to assert, you try to push that because one scientific article advices caution, all precambrian stromatolites are abiogenetic in nature

Because you weren't satisfied with the original stromatolites I posted, I posted others which you never responded to.

Although the biogenicity of some stromatolites is being discussed, there is no doubt whatsoever within the scientific community that unicellular organisms existed in precambrian times. If you were to state that no life existed on Earth in precambrian times, scientists would laugh at you.

If you want to discuss the stromatolites, go right ahead. I will find and bring out many precambrian fossils of which the biogenicity is not in dispute, if you so wish.

Therefore, you have yet to present even one shred of evidence in support of evolution.

You know this is a falsehood, why do you lie? You could at least say that although I've given evidence you disagree on its validity. Instead you lie and say that I haven't given evidence even though you know that just a few pages back we were discussing stromatolites and that I provided scientific articles discussing billion year old fossils.

Why can't you produce evolution in a laboratory setting?

A theory does not have to rely on evidence gathered from a laboratory in order to be science. Read the definition of science again.

Why can't you change one species into another one? This is why I am asking you for the definition of species.

Who cares if I can't change one species into another? That's not what the FoE states so why would I want to?

The same with the definition of species. Who cares? It's not relevant to the FoE so why should I define it?

I'm not going to play your game Alchemist.

p.s- i find it difficult to take you serious when in every post you keep putting emoticons to express your feelings. Makes me feel like I am arguing with a 12 year old. Not that there is anything wrong with that...and in fact I wish you were 12 years old because that would excuse the slowness of your wits. But still, at least pretend to be on par with me here ; )

This is rich, coming from somebody claims he is the only scientific authority on this forum, and then proceeds to spew insults throughout his post when somebody disagrees with him.

p.p.s - Go read over my posts again, where did I ever ask for "Visual confirmation"...yet you wasted 1000 words on just trying to convince me that visual confirmation is not necessary...

People had stated before that they had never "seen" evolution and therefore it was not science. Thus I pointed out that visual confirmation was not required.

Then you started going on about direct evidence, and I thought you defined direct evidence as visual confirmation. So I argued the same thing.

You then made clear that you have your own pet definition of direct evidence.

I'm happy that you do not believe visual confirmation is required for a theory to be science. We are in agreement. But, as I've pointed out, a specific type of evidence is also not required for a theory to be science.

I hope you have realised that a theory is not scientific based on the type of evidence used to substantiate, rather on the predictions it makes and whether or not those predictions hold true as they are tested.

[طالب]

Show me the scientific proof for Evolution.

The scientific "proof" for the FoE:

Proposition:
FoE; forms of animal and plant life (organisms, if you will) developed out of forms significantly different from them.

Evidence:
1. Living things come from living things. (never observed anything else)
2. Living things are different from each other (e.g. unicellular organisms are different from vertebrates)
3. Some kinds of living things existed on Earth before other kinds (e.g. unicellular organisms existed on Earth billions of years before vertebrates, see fossil record)

Conclusion:
Thus, scientifically, the "other kinds of living things" (e.g. vertebrates) must have come from the "former kinds living things" (e.g. unicellular organisms).

The onus is on you to prove that it has been empirically proved.

And now the onus is on you to disprove it.

Evolution was first propounded by Charles Darwin in his book "Origin of Species."

This is false:

Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ionary_thought

The mechanism for speciation has been dubbed "natural selection".

Who cares, it's irrelevant to the FoE anyway.

So in order for you to prove evolution, you must show proof of speciation.

Naa, how the process happened is described by the ToE, not the FoE. You don't agree with the FoE, so why should I start arguing the case for the ToE?

When/if you agree with the FoE, we can start arguing the ToE.

Until then...

That random mutations can derive beneficial traits to an organism.

Again, this deals with how the process occurred etc.

[ScimitarXEdge]

how is it that Alchemist has deluded himself that he's winning this debate? He's been corrected on errors and errant understandings left and right, he's like a guy who's drowning bragging about how awesome he can swim....empty pomp doesn't make up for lacking merit.

[Alchemist]

So this is your proof?

Not really. The earliest invertebrate dates from 665-542 million years ago (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#..._fossil_record). The earliest vertebrate is thought to be the Myllokunmingia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myllokunmingia) dated 524 million years ago.

That's a gap of 18-141 million years, not 2-3.

So invertebrates still predate vertebrates, perhaps by over a 100 million years

.


You know that dating techniques are not an exact science...the further back in time they go the more the error margin. So when are talking of hundreds of millions of years ago...the error margin is by 10s of millions of years.

So basically you are saying that within a few millions years, which is a blink of an eye in the cosmological time scale, an invertebrates "evolved" into a vertebrate?


What nonsense.

In reality, and even by confession of evolutionists, vertebrates and invertebrates are found together. So it can't be said that one evolved from the other.
Also you keep talking about invertebrates and vertebrates and unicellular organisms, but there is also another class of organisms that evolution can't account for - insects!
Wouldn't it be more plausible for you to say that insects should predate invertebrates? Yet the oldest fossil of insects is 400 million years old! What does that mean?
That invertebrate or vertebrates or unicellular organisms evolved into insects?

What about plants?
When it comes to plants, evolutionists are completely dumbfounded!
Go check the wiki articles on it son.
The same plants that exist now, existed even back then. No sign of "evolution". Yet you keep saying "different species of plants came from different species of plants". Even the palentologists who study plants have a difficult time classifying plants between before or after...yet you just do it. Maybe you should go teach at harvard son. No, you are just too sure of your religious sources, i.e wiki and talk origin. Too bad you don't know the whole story.

If we go by what you are saying, and not just look at vertebrates and invertebrates but all living organisms, your "theory" is busted. Your evidence is just a syllogism, a play on words.


Anything you can't explain you just ignore.

Like the fact that evolution predicted transitional forms but never found any. You didn't even address that point. You just go and try to match what I say against your bible, wikipedia, to see if I am wrong but everything else you ignore. Even then you fail!

And then whatever you can't explain you just deem it irrelevant because you are too ignorant or it is not covered in your bible, wikipedia and torah, talk origin, so it is irrelevant only to you.

Scientifically those invertebrates and vertebrates did not simply pop *poof* out of thin air you know. We know that living things come from living things though so they must have come from earlier living organisms, i.e. unicellular organisms.

But unicellular organisms can *poof* magically appear out of no where. In fact the Cambrian explosion shows that *poof* all classes of living organisms appeared at once during the same epoch - within 20 million years.

Remember the panspermia theory that I told you about?

Well guess what son? Microfossils are found in meteorites too:


Figure is a low magnification (1000X) Secondary Electron Detector (SED) FESEM image of freshly fractured fragment of the Orgueil CI1 meteorite that is densely populated with several different types of embedded filaments and electron transparent sheaths. Even though the field of view shown of this image is very small (~120 μm wide) a wide variety of diverse filamentous microstructures are present...."

This was just last month in the news.

So when it comes to panspermia, the skepticism turns on...

one scientist said this:

"If you look at the microscope photos, they are certainly suggestive – looking like photos made of various terrestrial bacteria. But then again, while intriguing, that's hardly proof. If similarity in appearance were all it took to prove similarity in kind, then it would be pretty easy for me to demonstrate that there are big animals living in the sky, because I see clouds that look like them."


Scientists Dubious Over Claim of Alien Life Evidence in Meteorite | Meteorite Cyanobacteria Extraterrestrial Life | Space.com





And what's left?

What are SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.
not just "Experiments". I am always experimenting on the forums too...right now I am experimenting how hard headed a goat can be. But you went on Wikipedia and just typed for the word "Experiment" ...very sneaky of you. But only fools can fool fools.

But you did something deceptive. You just copied and pasted the section from under the heading of Scientific method>Experiment. Of course it is explained to you that depending on the prediction an experiment can be made. The prediction in evolution in regards to the fossil record has been of transitional forms. To say that vertebrates cannot be found before 1 billion years ago is irrelevant to the case of evolution. I asked you why the theory of evolution has not proved speciation in a laboratory setting. You say that it has been "observed" in the fossil record. However for an experiment to be considered "scientific" it requires a level of control, where in one variable is only manipulated and another variable is measured, and all else is kept equal. This gives a true test of the hypothesis. Even in the same section it was recommended that the section be merged with "Scientific control"..so that people like you don't get the wrong idea. In this case, you could control the environment of a species and manipulate "Nature" such that one organism would be selected over another, until a new species emerges. Scientists have tried this, but failed. This is why I asked you for direct evidence...of evidence of evolution as it occurs (which means direct).


Paleontology, the study of fossils, is an art and a history.

A historical science

Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, philology and history itself.[3] This means that it aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[4] Hence it has three main elements: description of the phenomena; developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change; and applying those theories to specific facts.[3]
When trying to explain past phenomena, paleontologists and other historical scientists often construct a set of hypotheses about the causes and then look for a "smoking gun", a piece of evidence which indicates that one of the hypotheses is a better explanation than the others. Sometimes the "smoking gun" is discovered by a fortunate accident during other research, for example the discovery by Luis Alvarez and Walter Alvarez of an iridium-rich layer at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary made asteroid impact and volcanism the most favored explanations for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.[4]

Smoking gun =/= direct evidence.

It's ok goat.

I am cramming 10 years of education over the forum for you. You will get there soon enough ; )

[Alchemist]

how is it that Alchemist has deluded himself that he's winning this debate? He's been corrected on errors and errant understandings left and right, he's like a guy who's drowning bragging about how awesome he can swim....empty pomp doesn't make up for lacking merit.

all you do is come here and spam


It's ok.

Put the pomp pomp's down. Relax. It's just a debate. Not like your faith is hinging on it. Or is it?