Question Simple question. Is evolution real?

[Ken Fabian]

What has early astronomy got to do with it? We can observe the diversity of life and understand most varieties will not ever end up preserved in fossils - of course there were species in the past for which no record, fossil or otherwise, can be found. Observing life makes the existence of previous generations, from which it descended, a logical and reasonable conclusion.

Are you saying that unless every step change that resulted in a modern species is found as a fossil it never really existed? You would need examples of every generation all the way back.

Lack of fossils isn't absence of ancient life. "Similar" is not the same as "the same as" and "biological evolution" might mean "always changing", but not necessarily mean constant changes in outward form, no matter the etymology. Yet we could do a DNA comparison between similar in basic structure extant and fossil species of amoeba we should expect differences.

Science is big enough and flexible enough to find understanding amongst the observable life of the present and the evidence of life of the past. Sorry but I don't think you are going to disprove and overturn evolutionary science.

 

[Catastrophe]

Simple question. Is evolution real?

Would it be fair to say that the consensus is in the affirmative?

Cat

 

[rod]

Simple question. Is evolution real?

Would it be fair to say that the consensus is in the affirmative?

Cat

Cat, just my thinking here. It seems based upon what I see in this thread about evolution, waivers are granted as needed when the absence of evidence is encountered in the fossil record for the paradigm. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton did not operate like this. *Necessary demonstration* was required to change the paradigm from geocentric to heliocentric solar system.---Rod

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, just my thinking here. It seems based upon what I see in this thread about evolution, waivers are granted as needed when the absence of evidence is encountered in the fossil record for the paradigm. Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, Newton did not operate like this. *Necessary demonstration* was required to change the paradigm from geocentric to heliocentric solar system.---Rod

quote
Necessary demonstration* was required to change the paradigm from geocentric to heliocentric solar system
quote
OK. Where is this leading us?
Cat

 

[rod]

quote
Necessary demonstration* was required to change the paradigm from geocentric to heliocentric solar system
quote
OK. Where is this leading us?
Cat

Just my observation Cat. Different paradigms use different standards of verification. In the heliocentric solar system debate, the absence of stellar parallax was not observed until 1838 (Tycho used this against Copernicus). So this would need a *waiver* as I said However, other paradigms concerning origins, may need many waivers, thus different standards of verification are used today.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just my observation Cat. Different paradigms use different standards of verification. In the heliocentric solar system debate, the absence of stellar parallax was not observed until 1838 (Tycho used this against Copernicus). So this would need a *waiver* as I said However, other paradigms concerning origins, may need many waivers, thus different standards of verification are used today.

quote
However, other paradigms concerning origins, may need many waivers, thus different standards of verification are used today.
quote
So you are going to explain the relevance of this to evolution, or some subset thereof?
Cat

BTW what time is it where you are? I am 18.31 GMT.

 

[rod]

quote
However, other paradigms concerning origins, may need many waivers, thus different standards of verification are used today.
quote
So you are going to explain the relevance of this to evolution, or some subset thereof?
Cat

BTW what time is it where you are? I am 18.31 GMT.

Cat GMT - 5 hours for EST. No, I just passed on my observation about how different paradigms can use different standards of verification. Origins science in the fossil record does not have direct observation of the events like Galileo did using his telescope at Jupiter

 

[rod]

Cat, local time is 1334 EST now for me, same as NYC time.

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat GMT - 5 hours for EST. No, I just passed on my observation about how different paradigms can use different standards of verification. Origins science in the fossil record does not have direct observation of the events like Galileo did using his telescope at Jupiter

GMT - 5 hours for EST. I forgot where you are. Is it Toronto? More in a mo . . . . . .

 

[rod]

GMT - 5 hours for EST. I forgot where you are. Is it Toronto? More in a mo . . . . . .

Cat, my geolocation is classified, only James Bond can know ---Rod

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat GMT - 5 hours for EST. No, I just passed on my observation about how different paradigms can use different standards of verification. Origins science in the fossil record does not have direct observation of the events like Galileo did using his telescope at Jupiter

quote
Origins science in the fossil record does not have direct observation of the events like Galileo did using his telescope at Jupiter
quote
Rod. I am a very easy going guy. At my age you don't waste your time being argumentative (I am not talking about us). I have found you likewise positive. I am not sure where you are going with this? (shrug). Is there some sub agenda present? My position is clear. I accept the FACT that some millions of years ago there were very primitive beings - now there are (what we think are) very advanced beings. Either different variations appeared independently, spontaneously, or the observed change represents an evolution, with a small e. Where do you stand on this? I can't be straighter than that, can I?
Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, my geolocation is classified, only James Bond can know ---Rod

OK. Sorry, didn't mean to pry. I am central England, near Leicester (pronounced Lester). Some decades ago I spent some time in North America. Weeks in Valleyfield near Montreal - I think almost just yards from the border. Also visited W coast. Drove from SF to LA. It was just a natural question to see whether it related to my travels. Cat

 

[rod]

Cat, it is not a fact that you presented about the fossil record, at least not in my thinking, again standards of verification difference. Here is a quote from a source I use, “...That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hard-pressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off...Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.]

Standards of verification. Galileo observed the Galilean moons at Jupiter directly. No one observed dinosaur mass burial sites form.

 

[rod]

OK. Sorry, didn't mean to pry. I am central England, near Leicester (pronounced Lester). Some decades ago I spent some time in North America. Weeks in Valleyfield near Montreal - I think almost just yards from the border. Also visited W coast. Drove from SF to LA. It was just a natural question to see whether it related to my travels. Cat

No problem Cat here, I enjoyed the question and tie in by me to James Bond

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, it is not a fact that you presented about the fossil record, at least not in my thinking, again standards of verification difference. Here is a quote from a source I use, “...That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hard-pressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off...Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.]

Standards of verification. Galileo observed the Galilean moons at Jupiter directly. No one observed dinosaur mass burial sites form.

quote
it is not a fact that you presented about the fossil record,
quote

Now I thought all I said was that I accepted as fact that a primitive organism long ago has been "replaced" by a much more advanced organism. Is this what you disagree with?

 

[Catastrophe]

Sorry to interrupt. I guess you have Pool where we have Snooker. Is that right?

 

[rod]

quote
it is not a fact that you presented about the fossil record,
quote

Now I thought all I said was that I accepted as fact that a primitive organism long ago has been "replaced" by a much more advanced organism. Is this what you disagree with?

Yes, the necessary chain sequence or chain of events from A to B, has many gaps in it that cannot be directly observed like observations used to support the heliocentric solar system. Just changing body mass from amoeba to dinosaur or mammoth is a simple observation.

 

[Catastrophe]

No problem Cat here, I enjoyed the question and tie in by me to James Bond

By coincidence, there was a program on Sean Connery which just finished a few minutes ago.

 

[rod]

By coincidence, there was a program on Sean Connery which just finished a few minutes ago.

My favorite James Bond, Sean Connery. Next, Roger Moore, then Daniel Craig

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, the necessary chain sequence or chain of events from A to B, has many gaps in it that cannot be directly observed like observations used to support the heliocentric solar system. Just changing body mass from amoeba to dinosaur or mammoth is a simple observation.

OK. Perhaps I am beginning to understand. What fills the gap between "them and us"?

 

[rod]

OK. Perhaps I am beginning to understand. What fills the gap between "them and us"?

Interpretation without much direct predictions like timing of Io eclipse events at Jupiter that can be seen using my telescope today.

 

[Catastrophe]

Interpretation without much direct predictions like timing of Io eclipse events at Jupiter that can be seen using my telescope today.

You (correctly) stress observation. I observe a large difference between "them and us", or are you suggesting some "interference" with the record? Aliens? Missing super intelligent beings? Sorry. Being a little facetious

 

[Catastrophe]

Just read #42.

 

[rod]

You (correctly) stress observation. I observe a large difference between "them and us", or are you suggesting some "interference" with the record? Aliens? Missing super intelligent beings? Sorry. Being a little facetious

Geomartian takes the position of space aliens from other posts, Cambrian explosion is an example. I am not suggesting this approach but do enjoy seeing it on the forums when it comes up What I am suggesting, origins science reconstructing evolution in the fossil record has holes in it and lacks precision to predict for example, when the body mass of an amoeba will turn into a mammoth and just how many *common ancestors* are need in that chain of events. That is why I used the Io eclipse analog at Jupiter as an example.

 

[Catastrophe]

Geomartian takes the position of space aliens from other posts, Cambrian explosion is an example. I am not suggesting this approach but do enjoy seeing it on the forums when it comes up What I am suggesting, origins science reconstructing evolution in the fossil record has holes in it and lacks precision to predict for example, when the body mass of an amoeba will turn into a mammoth and just how many *common ancestors* are need in that chain of events. That is why I used the Io eclipse analog at Jupiter as an example.

Then how do you account for the difference between "them and us"? A product of time? What is your best guess (in brief simple language please?)