Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 30, 2014 at 8:26 pm (This post was last modified: April 30, 2014 at 8:28 pm by ManMachine.)
(April 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:
You hear a lot of creationist going around saying evolution is not observable. Is it not able to be observed? Are the creationist right? As we know creationist are wrong on almost anything. In fact is there anything they're right about? First it's good to know what the scientific definition of observation is. I said scientific definition because we are dealing in the realm of science.So what is the definition. Well there is two.(1)
1 The act of attentive watching, perceiving, or noticing
2 The data measured, collected, perceived or noticed, especially during an experiment
Is there any way evolution can fit any of these?
The first one evolution can fit. Let's take noticing for example. Darwin him self said that humans were apes. How can this be? Well humans and apes have the same behavior and the same bone structure, like thumbs for example.(2). So that's are observation, we have noticed that humans and apes have similar traits. So what evidence do we have to affirm this observation? Well there is the fact that humans and chimpanzees practically have the same DNA.(3) There are also a list of transitional fossils(4) and we know those confuse creationist.(5) So we have notice the traits of what non human apes and humans have in common and made a observation. We made predictions of this observations and conformed it with evidence. So what about the second definition? I will go over that too.
So what data can we notice or perceive during an experiment to confirm evolution. Lets go over the scientific definition of experiment.(6)
Noun: a procedure done in a controlled environment for the purpose of gathering observations, data, or facts, demonstrating known facts or theories, or testing hypotheses or theories. Verb: to carry out such a procedure.
So what controlled environment can we use to demonstrate evolution. Well lets take bacteria. In many controlled conditions bacteria change "kinds" all the time.(7) So in a controlled experiment we can change bacteria from one shape to another or change diet. Like when a culture of E.coli bacteria became larger due to eating a diet not usually eaten by the E.coli bacteria. I'd also like to mention that if we try to name every new bacteria that evolves then we would have to come up with a lot of new names.
So when confronting someone who decides to say evolution is not observable tell them the definitions and show them my examples. I would use the second one first, if they ignore that use the second one. If they keep saying it's not observable because you can't watch it tell them about something we can't witness like the planets orbits. Thanks for reading and tell me what I have gotten incorrect. Thumbsup
Darwin never said humans were apes, he said we share the same common ancestor. That's not the same thing.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
