What evidence would convince you of evolution?

[DeMotts]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[For_The_Kingdom]

The problem is the information doesn't support the statement you make. Latest example, you posted a whole bunch of stuff to do with the brain, then somehow "there is no evidence the brain evolve." Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

That consciousness, though.

[Bust Nak]

The post I thought we were both referring to is THIS ONE.

Same objection applies there, you posted a whole bunch of non-controversial scientific stuff and them BOOM! There is no evidence for evolution, evolution is not happening.

Regarding the post on the braint, if you did read the post, there would be no need to ask that question. I gave my reasons for what I say, there.

Hence my earlier remark, they are not very good reasons.

[Bust Nak]

It is about my lack of belief in an unscientific theory.

Not believing in something doesn't give you the right to misrepresent it.

Jesus Christ...that is who I am proud of...my lack of belief in an unscientific theory is nothing I should be ashamed of.

But an unconditional refusal change one's mind should be something to be ashamed of.

No wonder I don't believe it.

I am not asking you to believe it, I am asking you to stop misrepresenting it. Stop saying things like "evolution claim a reptile produced a non-reptile."

Ok, so I got four-non-factual opinions regarding an online article that was about the evolution of wings? Cool.

Well, I thought it was pretty cool.

And since I have good reasons to believe that life can't come from nonlife, I also have good reasons to believe that evolution cannot possibly occur on naturalism.

Again that doesn't mean you can misrepresent what it says.

I didn't downplay it, I just gave the non-fluff, non-feathers, non-bio-babble rendition of what is being claimed.

Minus the rationale for why it is being claimed. The rationale is rather important in science.

But what isn't obvious is that it happened at all.

It is to scientists, they have empirical evidence to go by.

Evolution is the presupposition.

Incorrect. That's exactly what I was referring to as "the logical conclusion given said presuppositions." Evolution follows logically from what we have observed scientifically.

The actual presuppositions are consistencies in the laws of nature, that the present can tell us things about the past, that reality is ultimately rational and so on. i.e. the philosophy of science stuff.

What I'd like is scientific evidence that things happened the way YOU (evolutionists) claim that they happened. Mere speculation is not evidence.

It's not speculation that there are gliders with winglets. It's not speculation that further back in time there was no flyers, it's not speculation that there are winged flyers now, not is it speculation that all life on Earth shared a common ancestor. These are the things that let us "speculate" that wings evolved from gliders.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 340 by Bust Nak]

a whole bunch of non-controversial scientific

What do you mean?

Hence my earlier remark, they are not very good reasons.

What are not very good reasons?

[Bust Nak]

What do you mean?

I meant the stuff about how the brain is made up of different parts, how each part functions, how each part of the brain is vital for survival.

I am saying none of that stuff is of controversial. They just do not lead to the conclusion "the evolution theory sufers some major brain damage."

What are not very good reasons?

"Evolution's not happening" and "there is no evidence that evolution happened" are not a very good reasons for not believing in evolution, because we actually have observed and repeatable instances of evolution in a lab environment.

"After 136 years of "experimental evolution", all they have been able to show, is that life does not evolve... cannot - no mouse have produced any offspring that becomes another kind of organism" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because evolution actually say mouse could only ever produced offspring that are variations of mouse. The observation actually matches the theory.

"Speculations, and assumptions are not evidence. The phylogenetic tree is an inaccurate and baseless "history of life"" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because the phylogenetic tree is neither inaccurate nor baseless speculation.

Hence my earlier remark, they are not very good reasons.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not believing in something doesn't give you the right to misrepresent it.

And it also doesn't cover up the fact that you lack the ability to support your naturalistic beliefs.

But an unconditional refusal change one's mind should be something to be ashamed of.

I said there is no amount of "understanding", not no amount of "evidence".

Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two.

I am not asking you to believe it, I am asking you to stop misrepresenting it. Stop saying things like "evolution claim a reptile produced a non-reptile."

But I don't accept the idea that a bird is a reptile. I love science, but I ain't buying that one.

Even if the claim is "a reptile produced a bird, which is a kind of reptile"..guess what? I don't accept that, either.

I do not accept the THEORY of EVOLUTION. Do you got that?

Well, I thought it was pretty cool.

I would also think it is cool if there was more evidence than mere speculation.

Again that doesn't mean you can misrepresent what it says.

Ok, give me the correct representation of what it says, just so I can say to you; I do not accept the correct representation of what it says.

Help me on this one...since I am disagreeing with the self-made misrepresentation of the theory...tell me the correct one, so I can disagree with that one too.

Or better yet...

"65 million years ago there was a massive extinction event, and all dinosaurs were killed except for a single group of feathered dinosaurs. These evolved over the next 65 million years into modern birds. So birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs!"

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions ... s-reptiles

Above is the "correct" representation of what evolution says....and guess what...I don't believe it and refuse to accept it.

So now, I officially disagreed with the correct representation of what evolution says. LOL.

It is to scientists, they have empirical evidence to go by.

Really?

Incorrect. That's exactly what I was referring to as "the logical conclusion given said presuppositions." Evolution follows logically from what we have observed scientifically.

The only thing that we observe in nature is animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

The actual presuppositions are consistencies in the laws of nature

Which laws of nature state that there will ever be a reptile-bird kind of transformation, whether suddenly or gradually? Go ahead, tell me the laws.

, that the present can tell us things about the past, that reality is ultimately rational and so on. i.e. the philosophy of science stuff.

In the present, we only see animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. The evolutionist would like to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, some voodoo stuff was going on.

That ain't science.

It's not speculation that there are gliders with winglets.

It is speculation that gliders evolved into wings.

It's not speculation that further back in time there was no flyers, it's not speculation that there are winged flyers now

So how do you get from no gliders/wings, to gliders/wings? Voodoo?

, not is it speculation that all life on Earth shared a common ancestor. These are the things that let us "speculate" that wings evolved from gliders.

Right, and I "speculate" that birds got their wings from an intelligent designer. Just like if you are drawing a cartoon character and you want it to have wings, you would use your mind to draw wings. Just like airplanes have wings, all via intelligent design.

We don't see mother nature giving "things" wings...ever. It is only assumed that she did...and an assumption is not a brute fact, is it?

[Bust Nak]

And it also doesn't cover up the fact that you lack the ability to support your naturalistic beliefs.

Another dodge. I have no problem affirming that none of the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis is backed by solid evidence. Where as you are still trying to brush the accusation of misrepresentation aside.

I said there is no amount of "understanding", not no amount of "evidence".

Same advice as before, it's not something you should be announcing for the world to know.

Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two.

What ever gave you that impression? Can you perhaps entertain the idea that further understanding of evolution would lead you to accept that, yes, what scientists have presented does indeed qualify as evidence for evolution?

But I don't accept the idea that a bird is a reptile. I love science, but I ain't buying that one.

Even if the claim is "a reptile produced a bird, which is a kind of reptile"..guess what? I don't accept that, either.

I do not accept the THEORY of EVOLUTION. Do you got that?

I get that, but that doesn't matter, science says birds and reptiles are the same kind. You don't get to decide what science says or doesn't say just because you don't believe it. Do you get that?

I would also think it is cool if there was more evidence than mere speculation.

That's why it is cool, it is not mere speculation.

Ok, give me the correct representation of what it says, just so I can say to you; I do not accept the correct representation of what it says.

Help me on this one...since I am disagreeing with the self-made misrepresentation of the theory...tell me the correct one, so I can disagree with that one too.

Lets start with the obvious. Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind. Anything other than "evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind" is a misrepresentation of evolution, regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not.

Or better yet...

"65 million years ago there was a massive extinction event, and all dinosaurs were killed except for a single group of feathered dinosaurs. These evolved over the next 65 million years into modern birds. So birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs!"

Above is the "correct" representation of what evolution says....and guess what...I don't believe it and refuse to accept it.

So now, I officially disagreed with the correct representation of what evolution says. LOL.

Don't care if you accept it or not, now that you know evolution says birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs. You have zero excuse in saying anything other than "evolution says birds are dinosaurs, as such dinosaurs producing birds is not an example of dinosaurs producing non-dinosaurs, but an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs."

Really?

Yeah.

The only thing that we observe in nature is animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

Exactly, which is one of the many observations that lead logically to evolution - it's not a presupposition but a conclusion.

Which laws of nature state that there will ever be a reptile-bird kind of transformation, whether suddenly or gradually? Go ahead, tell me the laws.

No specific laws, I was referring to things like reproduction, variations, inheritance and selection.

In the present, we only see animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. The evolutionist would like to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, some voodoo stuff was going on.

Again with the misrepresentation of evolution. We evolutionists would like you to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, animals were producing what they are and not what they aren't, just like we see today.

It is speculation that gliders evolved into wings.

A speculation that is based on what we have observed.

So how do you get from no gliders/wings, to gliders/wings? Voodoo?

No, a step by step gradual change, inline with what we observed today.

Right, and I "speculate" that birds got their wings from an intelligent designer. Just like if you are drawing a cartoon character and you want it to have wings, you would use your mind to draw wings. Just like airplanes have wings, all via intelligent design.

You can speculate, but you can't present empirical evidence like biologists can.

We don't see mother nature giving "things" wings...ever. It is only assumed that she did...and an assumption is not a brute fact, is it?

The word assumption downplays the evidence we have for supporting the claim that wings evolved.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 344 by For_The_Kingdom]

Above is the "correct" representation of what evolution says....and guess what...I don't believe it and refuse

Why?

[H.sapiens]

There is so much wrong with your post that it is hard to know where to begin. I will give it a quick once over and then concentrate (for now) on the bird/reptile taxonomy issue.

Not believing in something doesn't give you the right to misrepresent it.

And it also doesn't cover up the fact that you lack the ability to support your naturalistic beliefs.

Except he has done a rather good of supporting his naturalistic beliefs and you have done a rather poor job of falsifying them. About all you have done is either attempt to demean his views by calling the naturalistic (no points scored there) of misstate (perhaps willfully misunderstand?) basic taxonomy.

But an unconditional refusal change one's mind should be something to be ashamed of.

I said there is no amount of "understanding", not no amount of "evidence".

Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two.

An interesting issue. I would choose to defend the hypothesis that your modus operandi is to deny perfectly good evidence based on a defective understanding of the issues at hand.

I am not asking you to believe it, I am asking you to stop misrepresenting it. Stop saying things like "evolution claim a reptile produced a non-reptile."

But I don't accept the idea that a bird is a reptile. I love science, but I ain't buying that one.

Even if the claim is "a reptile produced a bird, which is a kind of reptile"..guess what? I don't accept that, either.

I do not accept the THEORY of EVOLUTION. Do you got that?

We'll get to this basket of deplorable miscomprehensions at the finish of this post.

Well, I thought it was pretty cool.

I would also think it is cool if there was more evidence than mere speculation.

There is hard evidence that birds sprang from the reptile branch. The question is not, "how did reptiles lean to fly and thus become birds?" but rather, how did small, terrestrial, warm blooded birds that were derived from reptile stock learn to fly?" See how that changes the discussion?

Again that doesn't mean you can misrepresent what it says.

Ok, give me the correct representation of what it says, just so I can say to you; I do not accept the correct representation of what it says.

Help me on this one...since I am disagreeing with the self-made misrepresentation of the theory...tell me the correct one, so I can disagree with that one too.

Or better yet...

"65 million years ago there was a massive extinction event, and all dinosaurs were killed except for a single group of feathered dinosaurs. These evolved over the next 65 million years into modern birds. So birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs!"

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions ... s-reptiles

Above is the "correct" representation of what evolution says....and guess what...I don't believe it and refuse to accept it.

So now, I officially disagreed with the correct representation of what evolution says. LOL.

You can disagree all you want, as they say, "you are entitle to your own opinions, but not to your own facts." The facts are that birds aren't just closely related to dinosaurs, they really are dinosaurs. Any competent biologist will tell you that.

It is to scientists, they have empirical evidence to go by.

Really?

Incorrect. That's exactly what I was referring to as "the logical conclusion given said presuppositions." Evolution follows logically from what we have observed scientifically.

The only thing that we observe in nature is animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

So wrong are you grasshopper, so, so wrong. The footprints of the transition are etched, not only in their bones, but also in their immunology and their genetics. There is no doubt what-so-ever, save in the overwrought imaginations of deniers like yourself.

The actual presuppositions are consistencies in the laws of nature

Which laws of nature state that there will ever be a reptile-bird kind of transformation, whether suddenly or gradually? Go ahead, tell me the laws.

Natural Selection, obviously.

, that the present can tell us things about the past, that reality is ultimately rational and so on. i.e. the philosophy of science stuff.

In the present, we only see animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. The evolutionist would like to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, some voodoo stuff was going on.

That ain't science.

Yes indeed, it is science. There is no requirement for direct, on scene visual observation.

It's not speculation that there are gliders with winglets.

It is speculation that gliders evolved into wings.

It's not speculation that further back in time there was no flyers, it's not speculation that there are winged flyers now

So how do you get from no gliders/wings, to gliders/wings? Voodoo?

, not is it speculation that all life on Earth shared a common ancestor. These are the things that let us "speculate" that wings evolved from gliders.

Right, and I "speculate" that birds got their wings from an intelligent designer. Just like if you are drawing a cartoon character and you want it to have wings, you would use your mind to draw wings. Just like airplanes have wings, all via intelligent design.

We don't see mother nature giving "things" wings...ever. It is only assumed that she did...and an assumption is not a brute fact, is it?

The "speculation" (poor word, "hypothesis" would be more accurate) is that one or more of four proposed paths describe the evolution of flight. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that flight was a development pioneered by small, feathered, warm-blooded organisms, that (except to for the teeth) we'd recognize as birds derived from reptiles.

You, on the other hand, submit as a fiat that god-did-it, with no evidence of either god doing it or rational critique of the accepted scientific view.

Now, let's get to taxonomy. Modern taxonomy relies on a concept know as cladistics. This is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics that can be traced to a group's most recent common ancestor and are not present in more distant ancestors. Therefore, members of a group are assumed to share a common history and are considered to be closely related. You have no problem recognizing many groups of organisms, such as animals, plants, mammals, primates, etc. In the same sense that bears, cats. monkeys, and apes are all mammals, birds, mammals, turtles, lizards, snakes, and crocodiles are similarly all reptiles. In the same way all reptiles and all amphibians are fish (yes, that's the way a cladistic taxonomy describes them, it only seems strange to the non biologically knowledgeable), and all fish combined with some aquatic organisms (that you;'d likely, in ignorance, take for fish like lampreys and lancets).

That's how modern taxonomy works, you never shed the nomenclature of your ancestral group. The addition of immunological and genetic information to the classic form, feature and structure analysis of earlier cladistics is fast becoming the dominant taxonomy. You are suffering from adherence to a taxonomic view from the 1700s that is rooted in the Platonic concept of ideals from the forth century BCE. You are badly in need of an update.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 343 by Bust Nak]

"Evolution's not happening" and "there is no evidence that evolution happened" are not a very good reasons for not believing in evolution, because we actually have observed and repeatable instances of evolution in a lab environment.

"After 136 years of "experimental evolution", all they have been able to show, is that life does not evolve... cannot - no mouse have produced any offspring that becomes another kind of organism" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because evolution actually say mouse could only ever produced offspring that are variations of mouse. The observation actually matches the theory.

"Speculations, and assumptions are not evidence. The phylogenetic tree is an inaccurate and baseless "history of life"" is not a very good reason for not believing in evolution because the phylogenetic tree is neither inaccurate nor baseless speculation.

Hence my earlier remark, they are not very good reasons.

Do you care to elaborate then?
A counter argument would give me something to address.
Otherwise, I still come to the same conclusion, since I said way more than those quotes you picked out.