Evidence for Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

My god its astounding the level of denial you maintain quite frankly…

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That equation fits in very well in the evolution thread - conjecture upon conjecture, small actual data figures that are hugely extrapolated upon, multiplication upon multiplication of error. I mean, it can't be helped that there are no actual, measureable figures for those variables, and that it's just an educated guess at their actual values

Why are you attacking this without even considering it? Its a formula that makes sense as it is. Of course we dont have all the data to fit in there. No one ever said we did. So no need to attack at all costs as if its the answer to the riddle of the universe which threatens you. Its simpy science in action. How can we represent the unknown? If we had all the variables what would the equation look like? And thats all they did. there is no "huge extrapolation" at all there. where is it exactly? its just a formula. there is no "multiplication upon multiplication of error" either. what the heck are you talking about? If you think the formula is dead wrong then come up with another. But just because it threatens you doesnt mean you need to trash it outright. Just tinker with it based on what data you have. Or what scientific constants you think need to be factored in.

The formula is very useful for obtaining RANGES. Not an answer to the puzzle. You are quite wrong when you say "there are no actual measureable figures" and its all made up. We DO know the rate at which stars have been born in the Milky Way. We also are getting a better bead on how many stars have solar systems with planets and we are just now forming a picture of how many of these planets may actually be earth like. Beyond that things get hazy granted. But you never see anyone putting information in that formula and acting like its established fact. If they do then they aren’t scientists. The formula to date is always used as a RANGE at best. Why are you so afraid of approaching questions by using a range Rian?

based on pre-existing biases, and often treated as facts.

what pre-existing biases does that formula show exactly? And really why are you so threatened by the concept that there may be other life elsewhere in the universe?

Evolution has so few facts to go upon ...

evolution has so many countless examples of its incidence in nature that you could barely hope to absorb them all in a life time. It blows my mind that you would continue to say DESPITE this fact that theres little or no sign of evolution in nature and yet say creationism DOES have evidence! Astounding…

and what IS directly observed are not the important things.

not the important things huh… because the ONLY thing that is important is if we can show right in front of your eyes that you can make an amoeba “evolve� into a human? And no fossil, no transitionary stage, no clear genetic evidence you can see right in the genes when we sequence them will matter. Nope. Sorry.

Awful convenient I say…

In fact, IMO, what IS directly observed supports creationism's claims more than evolution's claims.

oh you’ve observed god making stuff? Why havent you published a paper by now? Dust thingee to human thingee. Come on lets see it… nothing else is an “important thing�.

The "missing link" article that IRex provided is a classic example. If one has a preconceived, unproven bias that different species came from other species, then one will look at the discovery of a new dinosaur as a missing link, even though there is NO proof that it was. The way it was described, this new dinosaur seems very completely and competently designed.

so its just mere coincidence that it seems to be a PERFECT transition between a meat eater and a plant eater? Which is all the article was sayin. Hey look, this creature seems to have body parts useful for two different kinds of life styles. It also has a physical structure that would certainly seem to make it transitionary. And in fact its not at ALL “completely and competently designed� at ALL. That’s the point. It ate plants yet had a meat eaters gut which MUST have been a hindrance. The only reason it wasn’t annihilated instantly is apparently because it had strong arms and long talons which were effective defenses. But really, it would be even more ideal (one would think) if it didn’t have the fat meat eaters gut. So where do you get off saying it’s the “perfect design�? Why wouldn’t god just make it a proper plant eater without the meat processing part? Kind of like why is it we have a colon when we don’t use it and all it ends up doing is getting backed up with harmful bacteria or crap from our diet and sometimes killing us. Great design there god!