Spiders - or Does Evolution Happen??

[winjim]

So what actually happened then?

No witness to evolution, so that didn't happen. No witness to God, so he doesn't exist either.

There are loads of witnesses to evolution. It's observed all the time. It's just that those who deny it refuse to try and understand.

 

[benb]

Observation, OK.
We observe many phenomena in different areas: the fossil record, taxonomy, biological morphology, DNA, etc.
It all supports the prevailing view that the diversity and speciation of life on Earth is a result of evolution. That is, that organisms changed over time due to differential rates of reproductive success.

If you want to overturn the status quo, you need to come up with a new theory that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of evolution. Good luck.

 

[Spinney]

It depends what you call a 'witness' as well.
If it has to be a human, then there are no eyewitnesses to much of the bible (even the gospels weren't written until long after JC's time, were they?)

But if witness can be taken to mean evidence - what about fossils, just for starters?

Edit: posted simultaneously with benb's post.

 

[winjim]

Drat, you've penetrated my disguise...

 

[Tin Pot]

It's called google translate....they've just not made it look like a fish yet!!

So does that mean god does exist? Or is Spinney about to blow up in a puff of anti-logic???

Explaining jokes makes them unfunny: If Google had occurred naturally without human intervention, then yes. We would all be "buggered", luckily it didn't so we are all still saved.

 

[mybike]

even the gospels weren't written until long after JC's time, were they?

Not actually true, but a bit off topic.

 

[Tin Pot]

Observation, OK.
We observe many phenomena in different areas: the fossil record, taxonomy, biological morphology, DNA, etc.
It all supports the prevailing view that the diversity and speciation of life on Earth is a result of evolution. That is, that organisms changed over time due to differential rates of reproductive success.

If you want to overturn the status quo, you need to come up with a new theory that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of evolution. Good luck.

And the real problem is coming up with a better theory.

I have no doubt that one will come about, after all that is the real benefit of Scientific Method, but with so little reason to find alternatives I doubt it will be some time soon.

Personally, I have always been suspicious of the dinosaurs. I reckon they were actually tiny and some geological process makes the fossils look big. This is just my unproven hypothesis of course.

 

[Spinney]

Explaining jokes makes them unfunny: If Google had occurred naturally without human intervention, then yes. We would all be "buggered", luckily it didn't so we are all still saved.

Apologies - didn't mean to sabotage the joke!

 

[benb]

Personally, I have always been suspicious of the dinosaurs. I reckon they were actually tiny and some geological process makes the fossils look big. This is just my unproven hypothesis of course.

Well, there have certainly been some fossilised footprints that eroded a bit around the edges before fully fossilised, which made them appear bigger than they were, but I can't think of anything that would make a fossilised skeleton increase in size in a uniform way to make dinosaurs appear bigger than they were.
What makes you think they were smaller? (bear in mind there weren't actually that many species that were massive - loads of them were no bigger than extant animals)

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Not actually true, but a bit off topic.

Yet the Roman Catholic church accepts the Theory of Evolution. Their official stance is that God created the Big Bang (which is being debated amongst scientists), and evolution followed.

They also acknowledge that the gospels in the Bible were selected purposefully in order to portray Jesus Christ in a certain divinity.

 

[mybike]

Yet the Roman Catholic church accepts the Theory of Evolution. Their official stance is that God created the Big Bang (which is being debated amongst scientists), and evolution followed.

They also acknowledge that the gospels in the Bible were selected purposefully in order to portray Jesus Christ in a certain divinity.

And theology is waaaayyy off topic.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Observation, OK.
We observe many phenomena in different areas: the fossil record, taxonomy, biological morphology, DNA, etc.
It all supports the prevailing view that the diversity and speciation of life on Earth is a result of evolution. That is, that organisms changed over time due to differential rates of reproductive success.

If you want to overturn the status quo, you need to come up with a new theory that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of evolution. Good luck.

Close, but with a small, yet important mistake.

We make observations, then from those observations a theory is put forward that meets all current observations. You don't need to come up with a new theory that explains the observations better. What you need to find is evidence (an observation), that does NOT follow/work within the theory of evolution. If this happens, the theory will be amended, or a new theory put together, that allows for the new scientific evidence/observation.

It's all about the observations, and a theory that matches them. To break the theory, you need an observation that does not fit.

 

[winjim]

So, @mybike. What is your understanding of the theory of evolution, which bits do you agree / not agree with, and why?

 

[mybike]

Close, but with a small, yet important mistake.

We make observations, then from those observations a theory is put forward that meets all current observations. You don't need to come up with a new theory that explains the observations better. What you need to find is evidence (an observation), that does NOT follow/work within the theory of evolution. If this happens, the theory will be amended, or a new theory put together, that allows for the new scientific evidence/observation.

It's all about the observations, and a theory that matches them. To break the theory, you need an observation that does not fit.

You mean as in, if we plant corn corn is what grows?

 

[Andy_R]

Dinosaurs were teenytiny, but all that rock on top of their bodies spread them out really thin so they look much bigger. A bit like squeezing a veal escalope between layers of cling film with a rolling pin.