Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Nature of Evidence

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 28 posts ] 
The Nature of Evidence
Author Message
herebedragonsUser avatarPosts: 31Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:16 am

Post The Nature of Evidence

I would like to have a discussion about the nature of evidence in scientific inquiry.

This discussion began over at EFT in the Science 101 thread where it was asserted that evolution is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method, and in particular that it does not test with experiment. I tried to explain that observations can be used to test hypotheses and gave some examples. However, it seems that they continued to equate observation with "looking at something". However, the idea that evolution needed to be tested by "experiment" continued.

The discussion then shifted to the Macroevolution Challenge where Infy presented a challenge for others to submit whether they agreed that specific examples were considered to be macroevolution or not. After 40 posts of blah, blah, blah ... Infy finally posted his answers here. In his answers he included an example of a single-celled algae becoming a colonial algae, which drew this response

Excuse me! 'Induced'? Who was there multiplied millions of years ago to 'induce' evolution of single celled organisms into multi-celled ones? That's cheating. You have to have an observation that NATURE does this by itself if you are going to prove evolution

When I called them out on this inconsistency, the discussion quickly turned to abiogenesis.

So then a new member posted this thread Experimentation Versus Observation where she apparently noticed the same inconsistencies. I continued to press gilbo on what qualified as suitable evidence and did make some progress. I was not attempting to prove that evolution was true, however I was trying to nail his feet to the floor so that he would stop dancing around the issue of the nature of evidence. He determined that my line of discussion was off topic and wasn't willing to answer my questions.

I suppose all this is actually irrelevant to what I want to discuss here, I just wanted to give some background as to how this topic got started and also I wanted to vent some of my frustration about how this conversation went :x .

So, I would like to have a discussion as to what does and does not constitute evidence in the context of the scientific method.

Some of the questions that I think could be addressed are

What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?
What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?
Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?

Again, I want to focus this discussion on the nature of evidence, not whether evolution has evidence to support it.

Thanks

HBD
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe. - Petrarca
Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:53 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4287Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?


Consistency and independent veracity. Is the observation consistent under x, y z circumstances, and can it be be confirmed by others.

What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?


Again, veracity. Can the test be replicated and produce the same results elsewhere. Which is why peer review publication is so important.

Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?


To a point. Evidence gleaned from experiment doesn't necessarily always support a hypothesis.
Image
Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:09 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Greetings,

herebedragons wrote:I would like to have a discussion about the nature of evidence in scientific inquiry.

This discussion began over at EFT in the Science 101 thread where it was asserted that evolution is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method, and in particular that it does not test with experiment. I tried to explain that observations can be used to test hypotheses and gave some examples. However, it seems that they continued to equate observation with "looking at something". However, the idea that evolution needed to be tested by "experiment" continued.

The discussion then shifted to the Macroevolution Challenge where Infy presented a challenge for others to submit whether they agreed that specific examples were considered to be macroevolution or not. After 40 posts of blah, blah, blah ... Infy finally posted his answers here. In his answers he included an example of a single-celled algae becoming a colonial algae, which drew this response

Excuse me! 'Induced'? Who was there multiplied millions of years ago to 'induce' evolution of single celled organisms into multi-celled ones? That's cheating. You have to have an observation that NATURE does this by itself if you are going to prove evolution

When I called them out on this inconsistency, the discussion quickly turned to abiogenesis.

So then a new member posted this thread Experimentation Versus Observation where she apparently noticed the same inconsistencies. I continued to press gilbo on what qualified as suitable evidence and did make some progress. I was not attempting to prove that evolution was true, however I was trying to nail his feet to the floor so that he would stop dancing around the issue of the nature of evidence. He determined that my line of discussion was off topic and wasn't willing to answer my questions.

I suppose all this is actually irrelevant to what I want to discuss here, I just wanted to give some background as to how this topic got started and also I wanted to vent some of my frustration about how this conversation went :x .

So, I would like to have a discussion as to what does and does not constitute evidence in the context of the scientific method.

Some of the questions that I think could be addressed are

What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?
What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?
Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?

Again, I want to focus this discussion on the nature of evidence, not whether evolution has evidence to support it.

Thanks

HBD

We all know what it's like when others play word games whilst accusing us of that very same thing - and how frustrating it can be. :roll:

As to your questions...

1. What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?

One of the major problems about subjective observations by individuals, as well as groups, is that these can be challenged on the grounds of mistakes - such as hallucination and/or mass hysteria, respectively.

In order to limit, if not remove, this possibility, some form of objectivity is required - usually through equipment which is not prone to such errors: scientific instruments, audio/visual recording equipment, etc.

2. What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?

An hypothesis must be able to predict phenomena to pass the test - reproducible results by others also play a part in this process.

3. Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?

As australopithecus notes, experimental evidence doesn't mean supporting evidence.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:15 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2395Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

herebedragons wrote:I would like to have a discussion about the nature of evidence in scientific inquiry.

This discussion began over at EFT in the Science 101 thread where it was asserted that evolution is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method, and in particular that it does not test with experiment. I tried to explain that observations can be used to test hypotheses and gave some examples. However, it seems that they continued to equate observation with "looking at something". However, the idea that evolution needed to be tested by "experiment" continued.


The real issue here lies with the distinction between observation and experiment. Essentially, all experiments are observations, but not all observations are experiments. An experiment usually consists of the setting of specific conditions in order to test a specific hypothesis. It's basically engineering a set of conditions, often in order to remove extraneous factors or to ensure that sets of conditions not easily observable in nature can be observed. Observation, on the other hand, needn't involve any sort of design. There is no requirement in the scientific method to test through experiment, but there is a requirement to test through observation.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one, not least because it's so often misused or misunderstood.

The discussion then shifted to the Macroevolution Challenge where Infy presented a challenge for others to submit whether they agreed that specific examples were considered to be macroevolution or not. After 40 posts of blah, blah, blah ... Infy finally posted his answers here. In his answers he included an example of a single-celled algae becoming a colonial algae, which drew this response

Excuse me! 'Induced'? Who was there multiplied millions of years ago to 'induce' evolution of single celled organisms into multi-celled ones? That's cheating. You have to have an observation that NATURE does this by itself if you are going to prove evolution


Ah, macroevolution. The problem here is the way the word is being used. I've posted at length on this topic, notably HERE.

So, I would like to have a discussion as to what does and does not constitute evidence in the context of the scientific method.


Well, evidence would be any datum. Whether or not it's supporting or not, as australopithecus has touched on, is neither here nor there. Any data point remotely relevant to the topic constitutes evidence.


What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?


Merely that they are relevant to the subject matter of the hypothesis.

I disagree with australopithecus on one minor point, namely that it requires confirmation by others. It certainly requires testability by others for subsumation into the body of scientific knowledge, but the testing of a hypothesis doesn't require this. What is really required for an observation to count as evidence is that it has the potential to either support or falsify a given hypothesis. Indeed, that latter is probably the most important factor in determining whether or not the observation constitutes a scientific one. It's also how we determine whether or not the hypothesis itself is scientific, namely that it can be falsified. If an observation doesn't have the potential to falsify your hypothesis, it isn't evidence. If your hypothesis itself can't be falsified, it isn't even science (and doesn't deserve the appellation 'hypothesis').

What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?


Again, the most important issue is whether or not an observation, whether by experiment or otherwise, has the potential to falsify your hypothesis. If it doesn't have that potential then, in reality, it provides no test of the hypothesis.

Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?


Certainly. Michelson and Morley provided the best example of the distinction. They set up an experiment to test the aether hypothesis. What they got out of the other end were data that falsified the hypothesis. It was evidence, but it didn't support the hypothesis, it refuted it wholesale. That was the beauty of the experiment, namely that it had potential to (and did) falsify the aether hypothesis.

There is another subtle point to be made there, namely that when data falsifies one hypothesis, it generally supports another in one way or another. In reality, any hypothesis that has been tested against observation and survived is considered 'empirically adequate'. What science is in the business of is not, contrary to popular belief, unearthing truth, but constructing empirically adequate theories. Empirically adequate simply means 'consistent with all observations thus far conducted and not yet falsified.
Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:42 pm
herebedragonsUser avatarPosts: 31Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:16 am

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Thanks for you responses ...

hackenslash wrote:The real issue here lies with the distinction between observation and experiment.

Exactly. It seems these guys think that observation means just "looking at something." I also got the impression that they think that experiment is limited to a controlled experiment. I see the important aspect is that for anything to be considered a test it needs to be able to arbitrate between two competing hypotheses. Often, a test is not particularly conclusive, but it supports one of the competing hypotheses better than the other. The Wikipedia article on Scientific Evidence has a good quote on this idea:

"There are a variety of philosophical approaches to decide whether an observation may be considered evidence; many of these focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis. Carnap recommends distinguishing such approaches into three categories: classificatory (whether the evidence confirms the hypothesis), comparative (whether the evidence supports a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis)."

I disagree with australopithecus on one minor point, namely that it requires confirmation by others. It certainly requires testability by others for subsumation into the body of scientific knowledge, but the testing of a hypothesis doesn't require this.

I see your point, but in a way it does require confirmation, or at least it needs to have the potential for others to confirm it. That's what I would call repeatability. Perhaps I wouldn't need someone to verify my readings on every observation, but in order for an observation to be valid it needs to be able to be observed by different people who all make the same observation. I think that was more of australopithecus' point. Confirmation could also come in the form of past experience with a particular method. Additionally, that is why equipment and tools used to make observations need to be included in the methods section of a paper, so others can confirm the validity of the observations.

Dragan Glas wrote:3. Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?

As australopithecus notes, experimental evidence doesn't mean supporting evidence.

Well, that's kind of the obvious answer, but I guess I was thinking of that a bit different. I am not sure what gilbo actually meant by supporting evidence, it seems silly to say you accept any evidence that supports the hypothesis. I guess I was thinking of supporting evidence as implying things that are not direct observations related to the test, but rather auxiliary information that is used to support the observations, such as statistical analysis or logical deduction. So I guess my question is do you see a distinction between "supporting information" (such as statistical analysis and logic) and evidence?

Maybe another way of asking this is can non-empirical evidence be used to support a hypothesis (provided, of course, there is some empirical evidence - non-empirical evidence could not be used by itself) ?

HBD
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe. - Petrarca
Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:19 pm
nemesissUser avatarPosts: 1259Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

I managed to convince a creationist here on linkedin to provide evidence for creationism. i have to say, i not impressed. your thoughts. Below his reponse and two of his follow-up responses:

Creationist wrote:"All right, everybody.
XXXXXX, you wanted evidence for creation, and specifically for a young earth? You're about to get it, and in spades.

A scientist and former director of the electron microscopy laboratory at Cali9fornia State Univeristy Northridge, got fired two years ago. This after he developed evidence, in the form of living osteocytes in a supra-orbital horn of Triceratops horridus, that dinosaurs must have walked this earth thousands, not millions, of years ago. He did not *say* that last, but he put the data out there.

And his immediate supervisor did not like it. Not one d____d bit.

He BARGED into Dr. Mark Armitage's laboratory and RANTED AND RAVED AND SCREAMED AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS, "WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE YOUR RELIGION IN THIS DEPARTMENT!" Not long after that, the university fired Dr. Armitage. They said his appointment was only temporary and he lacked funding. Both of them lies, and Dr. Armitage has collateral proof in the form of prior documents and correspondence that the university is now directly contradicting.

Yesterday the Pacific Justice Institute announced the filing of a wrongful-termination lawsuit against CSUN. For "discrimination against perceived religious views."

Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/article/scienti ... -discovery

CNAV: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ... discovery/

CSHF: http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/20 ... discovery/

Now, XXXXXX Tell me *again* that a scientist can always count on a fair hearing when he makes a radical discovery that threatens the entire dominant paradigm in his discipline (and indeed in all the biological sciences).

This case is the anti-Scopes. Now we will find out whether a scientist has the Constitutional right to be right when his colleagues are all wrong. Even when that means validating a religion through work done at a government university. "


My response wrote:Dear TTTTTT

I'm affraid i can not accept the story of a scientist being fired as evidence of creation. The article presented is about the a law-suit against a university for firing a employee on religious grounds. although the circumstances may be related to creationism, this in no way could be considered evidence. This reminds me a bit too much of that Ben Stein movie 'Expelled: no intelligence allowed'.

I tried to find more articles on the matter and as far as i can tell, this Mark Armitage has been fired almost 1,5 years ago. Articles reporting on this have some interesting traits.
- The websites are all religious by nature. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, but i do find it perculiar.
- the articles are almost all (near) copies of each other, word for word.
I do not think it's wrong to spread news in this fashion, but it makes me wonder how critical the copiers were. Did they just copy the text or did they do some fact-check of their own. Difficult to tell.
- the lack of follow-ups regarding the California State University.
You'd think atleast one journalist would go out of their way to contact the CSU for more details on why mr Harmitage was fired. the total lack of information on this makes me very sceptic.

I have the feeling that it wasn't JUST mr. Armitage's religious view why he was fired, but it could have been part of it. I am curious about the outcome and perhaps through this case we'll discover that.
I would say, it's a big leap of faith to say that this court-case is evidence for creationism. i would like to request you give more direct evidence which doesn't require such a jump to conclusions.


Creationist wrote:"The evidence for creation is Armitage's scientific finding, as published in Acta Histochemica.

The firing I cite to refute the claim that lack of peer-reviewed published articles constitutes lack of evidence for creation, and that in turn constitutes evidence of absence of creation. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Especially when someone now alleges, in a complaint at civil law, a conspiracy to suppress such evidence.

Here is the complaint:

https://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2014/ ... plaint.pdf"


My response wrote:Dear TTTTTT,

If you believe that a part of living tissue in a triceratops is evidence for creation and mr. Armitage written about it and gotten it published.... Why are you refering to a law suit?
Why not use the article, even if it's not peer-reviewed?
By using the law suit and the complaint, you are only making it unnecessarily complicated.

also, this reminded me of the T-rex tissue controversy, which by the way has been resolved.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


Creationist wrote:"I told you before, and you refuse to acknowledge seeing it. I refer to a lawsuit to reply to any person who objects to the creation model by saying, "But they won't submit material for peer review!"

This lawsuit alleges one probable reason for the lack of "peer-reviewed articles" that advance a theory of history that happens to conform to a religious narrative. A certain scientist develops a finding consistent with creation--or at the very least, with the Global Flood. He submits this to a journal with a peer-review program.

Every submission crosses the desk of the Chairman. So the Chairman barges into his laboratory and harangues him.

Less than a year later, his article appears on-line. It has by then passed peer review.

Does the Chairman celebrate a publication credit that, one would think, would redound to the credit of his department?

No. he convenes a committee, of which this scientist is a member--the agenda, the minutes, and even the calling of which meeting he orders the attendees to keep secret from the scientist involved. And the agenda of that meeting is: get rid of this scientist. And that is what they do.

As I said: the scientific finding is the evidence for creation. The shenanigans for which he is suing his former employer, are evidence that the very notion of creation makes certain people afraid. "
Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:38 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Greetings,

The actual paper is here. [Click on "Full Text" at right.]

Armitage seems to be a known "loon"

Ian Juby has interviewed him also.

Although the above does say that Armitage hasn't claimed that the fossil was evidence of a young Earth or in favour of creationism, he did say so elsewhere:

Aug 14, 2013 Age of the Earth
by: Mark A

Hi, Paul and thanks. I don't know that I have said anywhere that I think the Earth is 7,000 years old - I would be comfortable with 10,000 to 20,000 years - but still it is quite young compared to what my evolutionary colleagues would claim. If you don't have deep time - you can't have frogs changing into men - except for in Disney movies. Radiohalos and soft dino tissues (my 2 examples of why the Earth is young) are only two of many evidences for a young Earth - please encourage your readers to study the creationist side, like I did as a trained evolutionist. The evidence changed my mind.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:26 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Depending on what a creationist means by soft tissue, they are correct that it has been found on different fossils. However, that in no way invalidates the known age of the earth, it only invalidates some ideas of how decomposition and fossilization work. In order for the known age of the earth to be challenged, creationists need to actually show why radiometric dating (and other dating methods) is incorrect. No other form of evidence will be able to over turn the age of the earth.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:58 pm
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Greetings,

Avicenna's take on Armitage's claims

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:03 pm
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Algea+algae=algae is reproduction,NOT life evolving.This is no different than two horses in the wild producing a stronger horse but this is reproduction.
Sat Mar 14, 2015 8:04 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2630Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:Algea+algae=algae is reproduction,NOT life evolving.This is no different than two horses in the wild producing a stronger horse but this is reproduction.

The theory doesn't state that "evolution" happens at an individual level. Evolution happens because the offspring is slightly different than the parents, not that organism is one thing than it transforms into another thing later in life. Nor does the theory state that the offspring is something completely different from it's parents. Your concept of evolution seams to be based on Pokemon's.
It is changes comparable in size to the "one horse giving birth to a stronger horse" (a trait that is not shared by either progenitor), that accumulated over successive generations is what gives the branching pattern of evolution. If you walk a meter away from home, you have not walked very far, but if you walk multiple times a meter away from home you will eventually would have walked a long distance away from home. And if you keep doing that, you may eventually reach a lake, or the desert, or tundra, a forest, the top of a hill, a different state.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:58 pm
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Algea+algae=algae is reproduction,NOT life evolving.This is no different than two horses in the wild producing a stronger horse but this is reproduction.

The theory doesn't state that "evolution" happens at an individual level. Evolution happens because the offspring is slightly different than the parents, not that organism is one thing than it transforms into another thing later in life. Nor does the theory state that the offspring is something completely different from it's parents. Your concept of evolution seams to be based on Pokemon's.
It is changes comparable in size to the "one horse giving birth to a stronger horse" (a trait that is not shared by either progenitor), that accumulated over successive generations is what gives the branching pattern of evolution. If you walk a meter away from home, you have not walked very far, but if you walk multiple times a meter away from home you will eventually would have walked a long distance away from home. And if you keep doing that, you may eventually reach a lake, or the desert, or tundra, a forest, the top of a hill, a different state.


Take it up with scientists not me as that is the kind of evidence they use to demonstrate life evolves and you are having to assume with no evidence to back up what you're explaining.Their evidence does not demonstrate or show what you are assuming.Their evidence shows algae +algae= algae and yet you are having to assume the rest,don't do that,just look at their evidence because it is only showing reproduction not what you are describing by assuming.You are believing what they say that their evidence does not back up.

Also stop denying what evolution has always been about,it has always been about macro-evolution,not micro evolution,micro evolution is not a common ancestor evolving into man or dinosaurs evolving into birds,micro is really just variations in reproduction that animal breeders were aware of long before Charles Darwin came along a good example is the different breeds of dogs from wolves but notice you only have dogs which is reproduction.Reproduction is not evidence life evolves.

Charles Darwin knew about variations in reproduction and he assumed macroevolution too as dogs were bread from wolves long before Charles Darwin came along.
Last edited by abelcainsbrother on Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:21 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:Algea+algae=algae is reproduction.NOT life evolving. This is no different than two horses in the wild producing a stronger horse but this is reproduction.

You've already been handed your ass on this point so many times it boggles the mind.

Any change due to mutation and genetic recombination is by definition evolution happening. That's how evolution is defined. It doesn't matter that you don't think it's evolution, it is evolution because that is what the word literally refers to.

So yes, two horsed reproducing and making a stronger horse is an example of microevolution. That's still evolution.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:50 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Rumraket wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Algea+algae=algae is reproduction.NOT life evolving. This is no different than two horses in the wild producing a stronger horse but this is reproduction.

You've already been handed your ass on this point so many times it boggles the mind.

Any change due to mutation and genetic recombination is by definition evolution happening. That's how evolution is defined. It doesn't matter that you don't think it's evolution, it is evolution because that is what the word literally refers to.

So yes, two horsed reproducing and making a stronger horse is an example of microevolution. That's still evolution.


Based on what evidence? I know you believe it but reproduction is all you are showing.There are tall people,short people,strong people,weak people but they are human,same with the horses they are still horses.Reproduction is not evidence life evolves no matter how much you say it is.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:01 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:The theory doesn't state that "evolution" happens at an individual level. Evolution happens because the offspring is slightly different than the parents, not that organism is one thing than it transforms into another thing later in life. Nor does the theory state that the offspring is something completely different from it's parents. Your concept of evolution seams to be based on Pokemon's.
It is changes comparable in size to the "one horse giving birth to a stronger horse" (a trait that is not shared by either progenitor), that accumulated over successive generations is what gives the branching pattern of evolution. If you walk a meter away from home, you have not walked very far, but if you walk multiple times a meter away from home you will eventually would have walked a long distance away from home. And if you keep doing that, you may eventually reach a lake, or the desert, or tundra, a forest, the top of a hill, a different state.


Take it up with scientists not me as that is the kind of evidence they use to demonstrate life evolves

Which it does. It actually demonstrates that life evolves, when we see small changes over generations. That is evidence that life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:and you are having to assume with no evidence to back up what you're explaining.

There is no assumption, if you see it you don't have to assume it. We see it, life changes with time. Case closed, life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Their evidence does not demonstrate or show what you are assuming.Their evidence shows algae +algae= algae

Actually it shows that algea changes and adapts over time due to mutation and natural selection.

abelcainsbrother wrote:and yet you are having to assume the rest,don't do that,just look at their evidence because it is only showing reproduction not what you are describing by assuming.You are believing what they say that their evidence does not back up.

The evidence for common descent and the diversification of life through evolution can be seen phylogenetics and in paleontology. As in DNA and the fossil record. There is only one sensible explanation for these patterns: Evolution does and did happen. Life evolved.

Image

abelcainsbrother wrote:Also stop denying what evolution has always been about,it has always been about macro-evolution,not micro evolution

It's about both. It has always been about both. Microevolution is defined as evolution below the species level, as in evolution that doesn't lead to speciation. That's simply what the word means and refers to. That's still evolution, a type of evolution called microevolution. But still evolution.

Macroevolution is evolution above the species level, as in speciation and extinction. That's it. Evolution is both things, it refers to both things.


abelcainsbrother wrote:micro evolution is not a common ancestor evolving into man or dinosaurs evolving into birds

No, that's right, it is not. But that is irrelevant, microevolution is still a form of evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:micro is really just variations in reproduction

No it isn't. Microevolution is evolution below the species level. That means all the members can interbreed, they all remain part of the same genepool with significant geneflow between all subpopulations. But it's still evolution, there is still changes happening at the phenotypic and genotypic level. Those changes are still subject to drift and selection. So it's still evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:that animal breeders were aware of long before Charles Darwin came along a good example is the different breeds of dogs from wolves but notice you only have dogs which is reproduction.

A wolf is not a dog. They're both canines, but they're not both dogs (or wolves). This is microevolution

abelcainsbrother wrote:Reproduction is not evidence life evolves.

Actually understanding how reproduction really works inevitably leads to the conclusion that life evolves (that species of organisms change over time). Because we know that the genetic material is changing over time. Reproduction in and of itself isn't evidence of common descent, sure, but it is a piece among many lines of evidence that life is constantly evolving.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:04 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Rumraket wrote:You've already been handed your ass on this point so many times it boggles the mind.

Any change due to mutation and genetic recombination is by definition evolution happening. That's how evolution is defined. It doesn't matter that you don't think it's evolution, it is evolution because that is what the word literally refers to.

So yes, two horsed reproducing and making a stronger horse is an example of microevolution. That's still evolution.


Based on what evidence?

The fact that a different horse was the result of the two horses breeding. The very thing you are saying isn't microevolution, is actually microevolution. It isn't just "evidence" of microevolution, it is a demonstration of microevolution.

It doesn't get any more direct, concrete and undeniable than that.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I know you believe it but reproduction is all you are showing.

No, microevolution is what has happened when two horses breed and the result is a stronger horse. That is microevolution by definition.

The horses reproduced sexually. And the result of that reproduction was a slightly different horse. That's textbook, dictionary microevolution. A teaching example. The very thing the word refers to, what we mean when we use the term.

abelcainsbrother wrote:There are tall people,short people,strong people,weak people but they are human, same with the horses they are still horses.

Which is why it's microevolution, as in evolution below the species level, because while there are changes happening, they don't lead to the formation of a new species.

That's still evolution, it's just microevolution. That's what the word means, the effect is what is referred to with the term.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Reproduction is not evidence life evolves no matter how much you say it is.

Reproduction, the act itself, is not. The results of reproduction, the fact that changes happen and accumulate over time, is evidence that life evolves. In fact it is a demonstration that life evolves. It is a demonstration of microevolution if it doesn't lead to speciation. It is a demonstration of macroevolution if reproduction totally stops and the species goes extinct and it is a demonstration of macroevolution if one species becomes two.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:11 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:Charles Darwin knew about variations in reproduction and he assumed macroevolution too as dogs were bread from wolves long before Charles Darwin came along.

You apparently haven't read The Origin of Species.

Charles Darwin never says dog breeding is evidence of macroevolution. He talks about the fossil record, biogeography, geology and comparative anatomy as evidence for macroevolution. Not fucking dog breeding.

Maybe you should actually read his fucking book before you start commenting on what it contains?

Here you go: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:13 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

Wow! First off.Stop with your lies evolution has always been about macroevolution,also stop acting like just because they can no longer breed they evolved,because there are many examples where they can still breed,so you cannot say that because they cannot breed they evolved.You both need to read "On the origin of Species" because evolution has always been about macroevolution and you cannot have evolution just having evidence for micro and that is all the evidence shows.If you deny this you are denying evidence you know about that only shows micro from viruses to bacteria,frogs,salamanders,fruit flies,etc you start out with one kind of life and still have the same kind of life at the end with no evolution going on.There is no evidence that demonstrates macro evolution.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:16 am
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1186Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:Wow! First off.Stop with your lies evolution has always been about macroevolution,also stop acting like just because they can no longer breed they evolved,because there are many examples where they can still breed,so you cannot say that because they cannot breed they evolved.You both need to read "On the origin of Species" because evolution has always been about macroevolution and you cannot have evolution just having evidence for micro and that is all the evidence shows.If you deny this you are denying evidence you know about that only shows micro from viruses to bacteria,frogs,salamanders,fruit flies,etc you start out with one kind of life and still have the same kind of life at the end with no evolution going on.There is no evidence that demonstrates macro evolution.

They're not lies they're facts you deluded and galactically inept idiot. Get your meds, your magicman psychosis is making you drool uncontrollably all over the forum.

There is no advancement of discussion with you because you're barely literate and probably not even potty trained. Get help. From an adult.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:23 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Nature of Evidence

abelcainsbrother wrote:Wow! First off.Stop with your lies evolution has always been about macroevolution,also stop acting like just because they can no longer breed they evolved,because there are many examples where they can still breed,so you cannot say that because they cannot breed they evolved.You both need to read "On the origin of Species" because evolution has always been about macroevolution and you cannot have evolution just having evidence for micro and that is all the evidence shows.If you deny this you are denying evidence you know about that only shows micro from viruses to bacteria,frogs,salamanders,fruit flies,etc you start out with one kind of life and still have the same kind of life at the end with no evolution going on.There is no evidence that demonstrates macro evolution.



Image
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:23 am
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 28 posts ] 
Return to Creationism/ID

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest