Evidence for Evolution

[Rían]

previous post - appear!

*cancels magic invisibility post spell*

[Count Comfect]

Your spell worked

The difference is that between betting that a specific number will come up on a roulette wheel or that A number (ANY number) will come up. We know A number will come up, because of the nature of the wheel. Because of environmental factors that have been observed, the odds of an ape-like creature, or a cat, evolving into SOMETHING over time is similarly high. But that a specific number (say, 5) will come up is relatively unlikely, just as the chance that an ape-like creature will become specifically a human as we know it, or that a cat will become a dog, is SPECIFICALLY unlikely.

Put another way, that evolution would come out exactly as it has is incredibly unlikely - but so is any other SPECIFIC result of evolution. But that evolution would produce SOMETHING is extremely likely.

And I am sure a cat will eventually evolve into something else. The odds that that something else will be specifically a dog, however, are infinitesimal.

Man descended from ape-like creatures via a similarly stupendous chain of events - but that didn't have a specific end in view. Evolution does not have ends in mind. We only think of this as how it "must be" or was "destined" because it is how it randomly ended up.

I hope that makes the difference clear.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

And we're supposed to read all of that?

Only if you want to actually learn.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Don't we assume they've read the Entmoot Rules? Does that not in turn imply an ability to read?

Actually most members don't even know we have rules.

I know it sounds illogical but it's true. Most just join and post and never 'explore' the link or the posted stickies about rules.

Lastly, to quote Tony Randall of The Odd Couple: When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. ass/u/me.

[Lotesse]

[Nurvingiel]

About the whole cat evolving into a dog thing... you can say a cat won't evolve into a dog without violating the Theory of Evolution (ToE). Why? Because according to ToE evolution takes place due to random mutation and selection over time. A cat can't evolve into a dog because cats and dogs already exist now.
A cat could evolve into a dog-like creature, it could even evolve into an animal that looks and behaves exactly like today's dog. This would occur some time in the future, when dogs have either evolved, not evolved, or died out.
By saying that cats could evolve into dogs, you would be saying that cats would evolve into the same species as dogs, that they would merge. Well, no. That's like saying your grandson could be your brother.

Maybe I misunderstood where you were going with that question RÃ*an, but I don't see the point of it.

[Curubethion]

Cat->Dog is a hyperbole...
Of course, it's along the same lines as dinosaur->bird...
Neither of which has actually been observed happening. It is possible that "intermediate forms" are results of evolution...or maybe they are results of "niche specialization" a la ID...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually most members don't even know we have rules.

I know it sounds illogical but it's true. Most just join and post and never 'explore' the link or the posted stickies about rules.

for every rule there is a loophole

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Cat->Dog is a hyperbole...
Of course, it's along the same lines as dinosaur->bird...
Neither of which has actually been observed happening.

So because no one has witnessed a dinosaur "turning into" a bird that means we have to completely reject the theory of evolution? And what about the fact that fossil evidence and genetic evidence and a number of other forms of evidence (physical) can CURRENTLY be observed that seem to support this theory about dinosaurs?

It is possible that "intermediate forms" are results of evolution...or maybe they are results of "niche specialization" a la ID...

Well if evolution can lead to "intermediate forms" why cant it lead to current forms?

[Count Comfect]

Cat -> dog is not the same as dinosaur -> bird, because dinosaur -> bird is an older form going to a newer form, while cat -> dog is one form going to another contemporary form. It would be like dinosaur -> giant crocodile.

[rohirrim TR]

it is all somewhat amusing when you think about it for very long

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So because no one has witnessed a dinosaur "turning into" a bird that means we have to completely reject the theory of evolution? And what about the fact that fossil evidence and genetic evidence and a number of other forms of evidence (physical) can CURRENTLY be observed that seem to support this theory about dinosaurs?

I'm not saying you must throw evolution out, just that you can't prove it this way. Yes, the theory seems to be supported, but wasn't that true about spontaneous generation in its time?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

but wasn't that true about spontaneous generation in its time?

yes, but that's the point... it was the commonly held belief 'till a better theory came along... a better one has not come along since evolution

[Count Comfect]

You don't throw out science because a better theory MIGHT come along... you only throw it out (or, at least, discount it) because a better one HAS come along. Spontaneous generation was a legitimate theory a long time ago... it is not now. Evolution is legitimate now, and will continue to be until a more comprehensive theory arrives.

[Curubethion]

Which is, you admit, possible. Here's something to think about: in the days of spontaneous generation, it was the widely accepted view, and it took a few radical scientists, whose beliefs were widely despised, to change it. Is it possible that the IDers are the contemporary "radical scientists" who have it figured out?

[Insidious Rex]

Well theyd need to actually show evidence for what they believe for anyone to actually see if their ideas match what can be studied. Instead they tend to just try to poke holes in evolution by saying stuff like well life is too complex.

[Count Comfect]

What IR said is basically right. That, and ID is an idea that's been around for a LONG time... it isn't really new.

And it isn't really testable. A nice article about that http://www.slate.com/id/2127054/

[olorin hamfast]

If a 3 spine stickleback had a brain larger than a wee pebble, Im sure it would tell you all how proud it is to hear such a bubbly dialogue on this diabolical subject. Sticklebacks with 3 spines (dont go to church) have evolved in thier dead end street like ponds to grow fancy spines from which they deter predators from eating them, while other no spine sticklebax may be chomped down by even the slowest froggie. The spines developed over a very short time comparitvely to wings on bi pedal reptiles... some 5000 years vs 5 million or so. Ask Dr Gould, not Dr Phil.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Which is, you admit, possible. Here's something to think about: in the days of spontaneous generation, it was the widely accepted view, and it took a few radical scientists, whose beliefs were widely despised, to change it. Is it possible that the IDers are the contemporary "radical scientists" who have it figured out?

no, because their theory depends upon an unprovable (thus unscientific) premise... "a creator"

if this creator can ever be observed, maybe... but 'till then, it aint science

[Spock]

..what do you think those UFO's are!