Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we need to back up and think about this word "proof".
Proof is a term that has a lot of different shades of meaning and I think they are being conflated here.
Mathematical proofs are the demonstration of a conclusion from a set of axioms using only deductive reasoning. These include rigorous informal proofs, as well as formal proofs. These proofs are only valid if they can show that they hold for all cases. Merely showing that it is true for some cases is not sufficient. I think it should be clear that this is not the kind of proof we are discussing here.
Another meaning of proof is sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition.In this sense of the word, a proof need not be absolute or universal. Proof of a proposition is merely sufficient evidence to believe that it is true. Here is a nice explanation of the difference from wikipedia.
So in a scientific sense (and a legal sense for that matter) evidence is what proof is made of. Specifically, when there is sufficient evidence for a proposition, we call it "proof". So between the fossil record, DNA evidence, laboratory experiments demonstrating that evolution and speciation can occur, and observations of ongoing evolution in other species, there is quite a bit of evidence that points to the reality of the evolution of life from single celled organisms.
In your case, you choose to continue to raise the bar for what you will consider sufficient evidence, because you don't want it to be true. But that does not erase the very large and ever increasing pile of evidence for common descent via evolution. At this point you are basically asking for a rigorous mathematical proof of a scientific process, which is simply not possible, nor is it reasonable to expect. Just as we do not force a prosecutor to prove beyond all possible doubt that someone is guilty, we cannot expect empirical science to remove all possible doubt. I find that for law and science alike, a good measure is reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the proof for evolution has long since passed that bar, obviously you disagree.
I would like to point out that it is a bit hypocritical to hold science, a human process of empirical discovery to the standard of absolute formal proof, when you exempt your own theories from any sort of requirement for evidence beyond your own subjective experience. If you will not believe that evolution happened because of the lack of empirical evidence, it is only fair to equally discount any other theory with less evidence.
-NoCapo
Dear NoCapo,
I appreciate your thoughts. But you see, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design. I just think if people are wanting to cram their faith in unproven evolution down my throat that they could at the very least do me the kindness of giving **evidence** from the MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE (where those mounds are no one knows) they already have. So far the evidence is couched in words like "seems to us" or "maybe" or "it could be" or "strongly suggests" or "probabilities might cause one to conclude" etc. etc. etc. I just want them to find one scientist who can say unequivocally: HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SINGLE CELLED AMOEBAS AND THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF." If they can't give me proof, or, evidence such an event occured then then need to quit with shoving their faith based stuff down my throat.
Dear NoCapo,
I appreciate your thoughts. But you see, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design. I just think if people are wanting to cram their faith in unproven evolution down my throat that they could at the very least do me the kindness of giving **evidence** from the MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE (where those mounds are no one knows) they already have. So far the evidence is couched in words like "seems to us" or "maybe" or "it could be" or "strongly suggests" or "probabilities might cause one to conclude" etc. etc. etc. I just want them to find one scientist who can say unequivocally: HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SINGLE CELLED AMOEBAS AND THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF." If they can't give me proof, or, evidence such an event occured then then need to quit with shoving their faith based stuff down my throat.
You are not the only person who would prefer the certitude of your fantasy to the possibilities of real life.
Dear NoCapo,
I appreciate your thoughts. But you see, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design. I just think if people are wanting to cram their faith in unproven evolution down my throat that they could at the very least do me the kindness of giving **evidence** from the MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE (where those mounds are no one knows) they already have. So far the evidence is couched in words like "seems to us" or "maybe" or "it could be" or "strongly suggests" or "probabilities might cause one to conclude" etc. etc. etc. I just want them to find one scientist who can say unequivocally: HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SINGLE CELLED AMOEBAS AND THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF." If they can't give me proof, or, evidence such an event occured then then need to quit with shoving their faith based stuff down my throat.
Again, you are misusing language here. "Seems", "strongly suggests", high probability" are all used to describe conclusion that the evidence supports. We have a fossil record that in conjunction with radiometric dating shows a very clear pattern of older, simpler organisms being supplanted over time by more complex organisms. We have, in many cases, a range of "transitional" fossils showing development over time, for example, whales. We have genetic evidence linking modern organisms to organisms in the distant past. We have examples of evolution and speciation that have been observed in the laboratory, thus demonstrating that the mechanism is possible. We have active ongoing observation of speciation and the formation of new biological features in current species in the wild. From these large bodies of evidence we have been able to form hypotheses regarding how evolution works, and have begun to be able to confirm and refine the theories experimentally.
Is your complaint that no one will put together a good list of this evidence for you? If so I would recommend talkorigins.org. They have a lot of very good information that you can research and verify if you like, as they cite their sources reasonably well.
Beyond that, it sounds like you are asking for proof in a mathematical sense rather than an evidential sense, which as I explained before it kind of silly. Demanding "absolute proof" is just a defense mechanism, since you don't have absolute proof for much of anything. You don't have absolute proof that eating is necessary, or that your family really exists, or that gravity will make you fall if you jump off a building, yet in your daily life you get along just fine based on these conclusions based on some level of proof less than "absolute". Aside from this demand for "absolute provable truth or nothing", the best evidence we have points to evolution. There are still gaps in our knowledge, and things we don't know, but the model appears to be sound and allows predictions that have been tested and shown to be solid. This level of confidence is generally as good as it gets in the real world. No other theory of origins comes close.
Dear NoCapo,
I appreciate your thoughts. But you see, I'm not trying to prove Intelligent Design.
understandable.
Quote:
I just think if people are wanting to cram their faith in unproven evolution down my throat that they could at the very least do me the kindness of giving **evidence** from the MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE (where those mounds are no one knows)
The museums are full it. Evolutionary books,videos and websiteshave it in profusion. We have explained it to you in detail. The only person who doesn't seem to know where it is, is you.
Quote:
they already have. So far the evidence is couched in words like "seems to us" or "maybe" or "it could be" or "strongly suggests" or "probabilities might cause one to conclude" etc. etc. etc. I just want them to find one scientist who can say unequivocally: HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SINGLE CELLED AMOEBAS AND THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF." If they can't give me proof, or, evidence such an event occured then then need to quit with shoving their faith based stuff down my throat.
You really can't see what a dishonest ploy this is? Skipping over the fact that YOU (not us) claimed that some scientists said that humans evolved from original single - celled life forms and you now say that you want us to find one to say something that you demand, You cling to the one thing where there is only a reasonable hypothesis and doesn't have the fossil and DNA evidence etc. that you would prefer to ignore and - I repeat - pretend that this is where evolution stands or falls.
I am sorry, but you don't get to tell science or evolution what it has to do by way of evidence before it is the best explanation. If the evidence for evolution from the pre -cambrian forms found in the fossils and the reasonable projection from that back to blobs, RNA and biochemical compounds is not enough proof for you that Genesis type creation cannot be true, then so be it.
P.s posting nonsense in block capitals does not make it any the less nonsensical.
Why yes, didn't you know sanspeur is a very important person which his own scientists?
No, they weren't apologists. They were scientists.
Here is a trailer for the show: History Of The World In Two Hours 2011 trailer - YouTube
just search for "The History of the World in Two Hours" on YouTube. You can actually see them clever single-celled amoebas getting together and making them thar fish. Oh yea, they show them fish leaving the water and becoming chimps. Seeing is believing, you know! :-)
That's a trailer. Oh well, suppose I'll look it up myself...I am REALLY interested to see the part where you claim they say "clever amoebas came together to make fish" (directly) and that "fish leave the water and become chimps" (directly).
That's a trailer. Oh well, suppose I'll look it up myself...I am REALLY interested to see the part where you claim they say "clever amoebas came together to make fish" (directly) and that "fish leave the water and become chimps" (directly).
I've watched the first two parts...To begin with amoebas are not mentioned at all...The film say the first life consisted of bacteria...I will watch the rest later and comment on the rest of his post, but from what I've viewed so far I doubt if he actually watched it,,,,
Okay, Eusebius, I'm on Part 2 of the movie, and so far it's taken two billion years (according to the documentary) for a single-celled organism to even multiply to several cells not even close to the simplest fish, what's all this "single-cell amoeba becoming a fish" stuff you promised me?
If one thing is going straight to the next, it sure is doing it sllllllllllllllllllllllllowly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
