Sorry, I lied: How convincing is evolution?

Question

Based on the answers to my questions:

1) Competent scientists don't mind working with a sample as small as 1/1,000,000,000,000 of the total population

2) Scientists see change and assume "evolution" without testing "devolution"

3) Scientists resort to emotional responses rather than providing data

4) When questioned on details, answers take the form of assumptions colored by the thoery. Scientists are unwilling to test their own work or allow others to do so.

5) Finally, when asked if evolution in bacteria provides assumptions that can be used in evolution in humans, most answers just said yes.

(Sorry guys, this last one was a trap, and you sprung it, big time! Bacteria can evolove into a different species in only a few generations. Humans have never been observed evolving. Bad scientists! Bad conclusion! I call it "blind faith!")

Some people also told me to go to more intellectual web sites or to have my work "peer reviewed".

Why?

There are so many people here who think they're justified in taunting believers with their superior intellect, this seems the perfect place to challenge that intellect!

Maybe my questions were a little beyond their means, you think?

That's right, Jedi Maiden, keep the faith!

You don't need to actually see other human species, you just need to somehow believe they're out there, somewhere!

(Faith is believing in the unseen, isn't it?)

Happykid:

I'm an auditor. It's my job to take the claims of management and test them and then issue a statement as to their representational faithfulness.

Today, the Evolutionists have given Enron-type answers. Samples need to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-5% of the population, and alternative tests are ALWAYS performed as cross references.

So why not ask the same of science? The excuse that we work with what we have is great, but how about not making statements beyond what you have?

Answer 1

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Scientists do not assume anything. They study, and debate, and test because they only want the truth. Most of the people on yahoo R&S are not scientists, i don't know why you would think that. The goal of science is to gain a better understanding of the universe, not prove certain things false, and other things true.

Answer 2

1) Some good human studies have been done on 20 - 30 samples. Science is best measured by the predictive power of a test, not the sample size.

2) Evolution means gradual change. Creatures taking on simpler forms by evolution is well documented. That is devolution by some definitions, but it is an evolutionary process.

3) Your ignoring the data does not mean it was not provided.

4) Your ignoring the details does not make them go away.

5) What we learn by observing bacteria is useful. Yeast take longer, but provide more information since they are more similar. A study of 10,000 generations of humans would take 200,000 years, and would be definitive. Despite that, I'm not planning on reading the article when it comes out.

Answer 3

given that most of your statements (except possibly the first one) are incorrect I don't think it is worth while arguing. We just would not be talking the same language at all.
Alone that you say that humans never have been observed evolving shows insufficient knowledge on your part. If you mean by "observed" by using your own eyes/experience, you don't seem to have any idea about the concept of generation time and the speed of evolution. If you mean observed as by evidence of the fossil record, your statement is plain wrong. Please look it up. I provided one link which may be a good starting point for your research.
Once you educated yourself we may discuss more.

As to sample size, you don't need to shoot 1-5% of the population in order to prove that a gun can kill... it really depends what you are looking at. Anyway, I've never read any survey which comes even close to your required sample size.

Answer 4

But where does your question go? You want to prove that there is no definitive proof of evolution? Is that it?

I concur.

Actually, there's no definitive proof of almost anything. Just explanations which are more or less likely. What's yours?

Edit:

Products of religious faith: some miracles, some of them without evidence, like jesus' resurection. By definition you don't need proof of them, since pure faith is the proof. To apply the scientific method to canons of faith is moronic: you disprove them by questioning.

Products of faith in science: big miracles every second. This conversation, for example. You don't understand why and how this internets things work but you have faith in that they will. That different kind of faith is based on the experience that technology can be trusted. You don't need to know how email really works to send a message, even when everything about it is perefectly explained somewhere.

Faith in science is what makes you take a theory, like Evolution and further question it until you can prove or disprove it. You have faith in that science will reveal the thruth someday.

So don't compare religious faith with faith in science. They're opposites in their natures: Religious faith ceases all questions while Faith in science is what keep us aking them.

Your "blind faith" argument is invalid since its based on a semantic trick with synonyms; not ideas.


Resuming:
"So why not ask the same of science?"
Because science turned your computer on today, not "the lord".

Answer 5

Evolution has a variety of studies a variety of sets of proofs but nothing to back up the long standing contention we all came from a bacterium or virus and certianly not to show we came from a chimp. Science is not even standing behind that one with totality. They now advocate alternatives like "separate and distinct species" although it's still from the common ancestry of a single celled organism that spawned from inorganic chemicals. A feat no scientist can show in a lab on a repeated basis.

Answer 6

1. at least they are working on a sample
2. assumption, please state the fact to back this up please.
3. assumption, please state the fact to back this up please.
4. Incorrect for anything to be considered established science it has to get peer reviewed.
5. It is precisely because the changes in bacteria take place rapidly that they are used, their change can be followed in real time. The mechanism is pretty much the same

We observe human evolution every day, however the changes are so small that we do not notice them until larger changes manifest.

Survive - mutate - adapt - evolve - repeat.

This "trap" was only sprung in your mind.

Answer 7

Evolution is better supported than all but a hand full of other theories, including the Theory of Gravity. Modern medicine is about 1/4 as supported by evidence as evolution; do you and your family go to the doctor? And there are examples of Negative Evolution and continued evoltution up to modern day. (1)

Answer 8

How can you say we don't know humans evolved when we have fossils that show it? How can you say the theories aren't tested by other scientists? A scientist doesn't need to "let" another scientist test a theory. They test whatever they want, and do! Wow, you're ignorant.

Answer 9

Your "challenges" to evolution were facile and never once did you attempt to question the points made in response. Let's see you challenge some of the opinions you disagree with. I'll debate with you any time on this subject if you feel you are up to it.

Answer 10

Piltdown guy: A fraud suspected early on, and uncovered by using implementation of the medical technique. technological expertise, no longer faith, got here upon the fact. +a million to technological expertise. technological expertise a million, Creationism 0 Nebraska guy: A mis-id uncovered in the direction of the medical technique. +a million to technological expertise. technological expertise 2, Creationism 0 Java guy: Disproven as a means ancestor of cutting-edge human beings in the direction of the medical technique. hardly do Creationist web pages point out, and often make traditionally misguided claims in the different, that a) Dubois first printed is Wadjak findings in 1890, no longer 1922 b) Wadjak is sixty 5 miles (over 100km) faraway from the unique Java guy website. no longer "interior attain". +a million to technological expertise. technological expertise 3, Creationism 0 Orce guy: A small looking with little bearing on the familiar understand-how of human evolution. in spite of Creationist assertions, it has no longer been definitively shown to be a donkey or the different equine. Debate over the cranium maintains. 0 to the two communities. technological expertise 3, Creationism 0 Neanderthal: in user-friendly terms synonymous with brutishness between people who do no longer stick to paleontological discoveries. opposite to 3 Creationist claims, they weren't "in basic terms as human as us", as this means they *have been* human. they have been shown by way of many procedures, from bone diagnosis to DNA testing, to be a special species. The physiological modifications are obtrusive even to those without education in any appreciate. those discoveries have been made by way of persevered examine and utility of the medical technique. +a million to technological expertise. technological expertise 4, Creationism 0 very final score: technological expertise: 4/5 creation: 0.5 technological expertise is self-correcting. Creationism is self-deluding.