User talk:DGG/evolution

For convenience, I have moved the talk on evolution/creationism to this subpage.

A Degree of certainty

Ratso, you would find it rather difficult to prove that nobody every was thrown off the earth by rotation, as you say at RD's page. You are assuming it as common knowledge, but do you yourself personally know enough physics about the world in general to prove it? Particularly, would you be able to prove it to someone who really did have a doctorate-level knowledge of physics and was for some reason determined to prove you wrong? I know that evolution took place for analogous reasons. I know of zero evidence to the contrary, it is consistent with the structure and behavior of living organisms as we find them, and fits into a satisfying general world view. (I do admit to having the advantage of you--I am quite prepared to prove it at a research level, but enough good scientists at WP have already done so.)

No they haven't proven that all life came from a common ancestor; nor can they prove that evolution causes changes toward the more complex. Do you think things are changing toward the more complex? That's ultimate proof that you are wrong.

The proof of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions about what will be found by observation and experiment, and nothing is found that contradicts it, or is not explainable by compatible processes. Darwin made specific predictions about what yet undiscovered fossils would be found, and so they have been, while none has been found that is no explainable. It makes predictions about what will happen in laboratory and field genetics, and when the different aspects of genetics have become well enough known, the predictions results support it. It particularly makes predictions about the common origin of life, and when molecular biology does finally a century later decipher the genetic code of apparently unrelated organisms,it is found that the sequences of the genes for their basic functions are very similar. It predicts the differences will be less for mammals than for vertebrates in general, and for 100s of genes, so they are. It does not at the beginning have an explanation of the rise of new functions, but when developmental genetics is known sufficiently, an explanation is found.

Related functions of genes indicates common design. You cannot at all use this as proof for a "common ancestor".

It could have been otherwise.We might have found strange fossil fish, but none that looked like an intermediate to amphibians. We found a prehistoric skull that did not fit into any really sensible pattern of evolutionary development, and 40 years later we found the evidence that it was a deliberate fake. We might have found that the genes for cytochrome in different animals were totally different in sequence. We might have found that the very peculiar species of bacteria not known to Darwin had their cells organised altogether unlike anything else, but we found that their cells had DNA and RNA and proteins, just as we, but sufficiently different in detail to explain why they were peculiar.

Darwin's theory says nothing about ultimate causes. What it says is that, since the origin of life, no phenomena have occurred which require for their explanation a divine intervention. The origin of life remains open, but even that problem seems tractable to scientific methods, and the area left unknown has decreased continually since Darwin.

As you can see, evolution cannot explain the origin of life without saying that it came from nonliving chemicals. Nobody has yet been able to make life in a laboratory, but they may someday and this will only place forth stronger evidence that intelligence is required in the production of life.

This is enough to be proof. The true analogy is not being thrown of the earth but atmospheric dynamics. We do not yet know this subject to be able to predict in detail the weather over the next twenty years, or even the next month. But nobody now supposes that the weather is a divine miracle each day, for we do know how the patterns one day give rise to those of the next. We know better than to try to solve the carbon dioxide emissions problem by expecting a miracle that will destroy 90% of it for us. DGG 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The weather does come from previous patterns, but who sustains these patterns? God of course. Nobody is expecting a miracle that will destroy 90% of carbon dioxide emissions for us; it is up to us to use our resources wisely, after all, God did say that we're supposed to take care of the earth, not destroy it. Ratso 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, especially the last of them, for they have nicely illustrated my point. As I quote from my user page

I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. DGG 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)