legal reasoning on evolution

[xxx200]

dear friends

 

this is my first thread. i want to know about Darwin's theory of evolution with evidence. in order to prove darwin's theory of evolution the following things should be proved:

 

 

conclusion: man is evolved from monkey

 

reason 1: there was monkeys and not men.

 

reason 2: evolution process takes place.

 

reason 3: man comes out as a result of that process.

 

if anybody establish these reasons with proper evidence, i will be very happy and obliged. fossils do not prove any of the reasons stated above.

[Ringer]

I seem to be talking about misconceptions about evolution a lot lately. Men are not evolved from monkeys, you premise is false so all that follows is false. extant species didn't evolve from extant species. We have common ancestors with monkeys but our common ancestor was neither man nor monkey.

 

If you want to actually learn about evidence for evolution read up on some things on Talk Origins FAQ.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Ringer

[Moontanman]

dear friends

 

this is my first thread. i want to know about Darwin's theory of evolution with evidence. in order to prove darwin's theory of evolution the following things should be proved:

 

 

conclusion: man is evolved from monkey

 

reason 1: there was monkeys and not men.

 

reason 2: evolution process takes place.

 

reason 3: man comes out as a result of that process.

 

if anybody establish these reasons with proper evidence, i will be very happy and obliged. fossils do not prove any of the reasons stated above.

 

Actually if you go back far enough man evolved from bacteria, your lack of understanding of the evidence for evolution does not negate the evidence for evolution. BTW, the creatures that both we and modern monkeys evolved from would indeed, if we could go back in time and see them, be called monkeys by us. If the quite extensive fossil evidence doesn't provide evidence of evolution then what would it take to convince you evolution is real? A crocoduck? BTW, evolution and creationism have already been on legal trial and guess what, evolution won, hands down won and the Judge was a Conservative Christian.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Edited July 6, 2011 by Moontanman

[xxx200]

but what about the existence of evolution process ? what is the evidence that evolution process does exist?

 

and how come a superior being like a man can evolve from an inferior being like a bacteria? from where man's superiority comes ?

 

here is my story. see how it fits. there is no such thing as evolution process. if there was anything called evolution then where is the process now? why did it stops so suddenly ? there is no answer to these questions. and since there is no solid substantial evidence of the existence of evolution process,i dismiss the total concept of evolution. all the creatures of the universe were created simultaneously. that's why we don't see the process of evolution now. because of the same reason, there is so much variety in the universe today.and there was a creator. all these new variety was his contribution because in each creature, there are something new and superior quality.if creatures evolve from inferior things, from where the superior quality comes from ? somebody must give it to the creatures. now this story fits the observation. isn't it? so this is a scientific theory.

Edited July 6, 2011 by swansont
turned volume down

[swansont]

BTW, evolution and creationism have already been on legal trial and guess what, evolution won, hands down won and the Judge was a Conservative Christian.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

That was the legality of teaching it.

 

Science does not proceed along the lines of legal arguments; it sets the bar higher than that in terms of the arguments it makes e.g. the process of science does not include ignoring or covering up evidence that contradicts it, while the practice of law (and politics) tends to embrace that tactic.

[Arete]

1) go to Google scholar, 2) type in "speciation process" 3) click search 4) read papers (there's approx quarter million of them, so probably not all of them).

 

I have a genetics bias, but some of my picks from the current literature providing new evidence for the process of speciation include:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711000024

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711001133

http://www.springerlink.com/content/306486531v05h263/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uml7526616862072/

 

The documented empirical, theoretical and logical support for the fact of evolution is copious and easily available. Demanding others to appeal to your incredulity while you sit there deciding what is and isn't "proof" is disingenuous. If you have a genuine interest in what the scientific evidence offers, do some research - the information is all out there.

[Moontanman]

Another good one, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705211022.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29,

 

BTW, how do you explain there are no fossils of bunnies in the Cambrian era if everything was created all at once? There are no fossils of modern animals out of place in the fossil record, no apes, humans, horses, cows, or bunnies either in the Cretaceous, no out of place animals at all. Do you wonder why if everything was created at once why this is true?

 

That was the legality of teaching it.

 

Science does not proceed along the lines of legal arguments; it sets the bar higher than that in terms of the arguments it makes e.g. the process of science does not include ignoring or covering up evidence that contradicts it, while the practice of law (and politics) tends to embrace that tactic.

 

 

He was the one who asked for the trial part and it was deemed not legal to teach because it was dishonest, the Judge himself noted that ID was not supported by any evidence other than lies. He was not only a Federal Judge, appointed by George Bush, he was a conservative Christian Judge, the ID'ers were ecstatic at first when they found out he was the judge, they expected him to rule in their favor because he was a Conservative Christian appointed by George Bush, they are quoted as saying before the trial that this man knows who butters his bread, lucky for us and sadly for them he was also honest.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Moontanman

[Edtharan]

but what about the existence of evolution process ? what is the evidence that evolution process does exist?

 

Evolution can actually be mathematically proven as a process.

 

Biological evolution (which is what we are really talking about here) is just one instance of the process of evolution.

 

To put it simply, computers are mathematical machines. They are designed to operate only on mathematical processes. If a process is not mathematically true, then it can't operate on a computer (it is more complex than this, but this is essentially it in a simplified statement).

 

Thus, if evolution is mathematically true, then it would be possible to write a computer program that performs evolutionary processes. This has been done and much of the technology we have today relies on the fact that evolution as a process is true. Look up "Evolutionary Algorithms" if you want more on that.

 

and how come a superior being like a man can evolve from an inferior being like a bacteria? from where man's superiority comes ?

The problem here is thinking that one species is superior than another.

 

It is possible to say that one species is better than another in a specific set of traits, but you can't say one is "superior" as a general statement.

 

Yes, we are better than bacteria in thinking, but bacteria are better than us at reproducing (about 20 minutes for bacteria as opposed to 20 years for humans). Also, bacteria can survive without us, but we can't survive without bacteria (in fact, there are more bacterial cells in you than human cells, so are we just bacteria with a bit of human pollution? ).

 

So, depending on what traits you choose to look at, bacteria could well be considered superior to humans. This is why it is a fallacy to claim one species has superiority over another as it is entirely a biased opinion formed by cherry picking the traits for the species you want to be considered superior.

 

if there was anything called evolution then where is the process now?

Still going on quite nicely.

 

why did it stops so suddenly ?

It didn't

 

there is no answer to these questions.

Actually I just answered them.

 

and since there is no solid substantial evidence of the existence of evolution process,i dismiss the total concept of evolution.

Since evolutionary processes have been mathematically proven, then if 1 + 1 = 2 then evolution must exist.

 

This is because processes can be described by an Algorithm, and an algorithm is a series of mathematical functions. The mathematical functions needed to describe evolution are capable of being performed by a computer, thus is a computer is capable of running the algorithm of evolution, then it must be mathematically true that evolution exists.

 

This means that if you dismiss evolution you also have to dismiss all mathematics (and your bank account is handled by mathematics).

 

if creatures evolve from inferior things, from where the superior quality comes from ? somebody must give it to the creatures. now this story fits the observation. isn't it?

Again, the problem with inferior/superior is a false one. It only depends on what you arbitrarily define.

 

Think of it this way. Are you a superior being to your parents? If you believe that all creatures were created simultaneously then you couldn't be superior to your parents. Sure, you might know more, but your parents are capable of learning that knowledge too. This shows that thinking that evolution creates "more superior" species as time goes on is a false one.

 

And here is a real important one: Are you more superior than your cousins? Your cousins are of the same generation to you (you share a common ancestor - your grandparents) so biologically you haven't had more or less chance for evolution than them.

 

Now, if evolution is true, then a monkey living to day is like your cousin. That is: We share a common ancestor.

 

Now you probably think that you are superior to a monkey, but as you would not think you are superior to your cousin, then why would you think one species is more superior than its cousin species.

 

This means that talking about superior or inferior species is not true. But, as your argument relies on there being superior and inferior species, then your argument collapses.

 

so this is a scientific theory.

Actually no, it is not a Scientific theory. It might fit the colloquial use of the word theory, but the colloquial use does not have the word "Scientific" in front of it.

 

The word "Scientific" in Scientific Theory is a very important one as it tells you which definition of the word "Theory" you are supposed to use (ie: not the colloquial one).

 

A scientific theory has a very precise meaning. What you have proposed is not a theory, but is speculation (hence why this thread is in the speculation part of the forum).

 

if anybody establish these reasons with proper evidence, i will be very happy and obliged.

The mathematical process of evolution works like this (note: I am not, at this point, talking about biological evolution, but evolution as the more general process):

 

1) Take a data set (such as a sting of letters and numbers)

2) Make many copies of that data set

3) With each copy make small changes in them form the original (these don;t have to be random, but they don't have to be non random either)

4) Test these data sets according to some sets of criteria

5) Remove the ones that fit the criteria the worst

6) Repeat from step 2 to step 5 until no data sets are left or another event you define.

 

This process IS evolution. This process exists (you just read it and you couldn't have done that if it didn't exist). Thus evolution exists.

 

You can see the evidence of the existence of evolution yourself (just look at the process above). Not only that, you can test it out for your self. All you need is a pen and paper and a bit of time (or a computer and a knowledge of programming).

 

Here is an experiment you can try:

 

We are going to evolve one string of letters into another string of letters (the Word "yellow" into the word "blue"). So grab a piece of paper (you might need several) and a pen (or pencil) and a 6 sided dice (we need this for randomness as we are using randomness in this)

 

So to start off, we will begin step 1 of the process: Take a data set

 

This will be the word: "yellow"

 

In step 2 we make copies of this (we will just use 10 copies as we don't want to fill up too many sheets of paper). So write out the word Yellow 10 times.

 

In step 3 we make a small change to each of those copies. Start with the first copy of the word Yellow (we will do the same with each word, but I'll only describe it once). For each letter in the word we will roll the dice.

 

If the dice comes up a 6 we will make a change (this will mean that some words won't have any changes to them and some will have multiple changes to them). To make the change we will rill the dice again to determine what change occurs.

 

If this second roll is a:

1: Delete that letter from the word (if the letter was the "Y" in "yellow", then the word would become "ellow")

2: Duplicate the letter (if the letter was "E" in yellow, then the word would become "yeellow")

3: The letter becomes the previous letter in the alphabet (if the letter was the "O" in "yellow" the word would become "yellnw")

4: The letter becomes the next letter in the alphabet (if the letter was the second "L" in "yellow" the word would become "yelmow")

5: The letter moves 1 place forward in the word and if it is the first letter it becomes the last letter (if the letter was the first "L" in "yellow" the word would become "ylelow").

6: The letter moves 1 place backwards in the word and if it is the last letter it becomes the first letter (if the letter was the "W" in "yellow" the word would become "wyello").

 

In step 4 of the process we need to test these new words against the target word according to some set of criteria.

 

We will give each word a score according to the following:

If the word has a letter that appears in the target word (in this case "blue"), then the word gets +1 point.

 

If the word has the right letter in the right place it gets +1 point (this is in addition to the point for having the right letter).

 

For each letter difference in length between the word being tested and the target word, subtract 1 point (negative scores are not a problem as we will only be looking at the higher scores in step 5 and as -3 is a higher score than -4 we can still make a comparison).

 

Calculate the scores for each word and write them down next to the word (so you can remember what they are fore the next step).

 

In step 5 we remove the worst scores. So in this experiment we will remove all but the best 3 scores. IF there are more than 3 scores with the same score and are the highest scores, just randomly select 3 of them (you have a dice so you can use that).

 

In step 6 we repeat all of the above (but we will end up with 30 words become we start with 3 words and make 10 words from each).

 

If you follow that experiment it might take you a couple of hours to see evolution happening right in front of you (if you know how to program, it is faster to let the computer perform it).

 

Now, as we are using randomness (a dice) to determine much of what occurs in this, you might wonder how it can lead to evolution. It works because some changes are good and some are bad (and some are neutral), but we remove all the bad ones.

 

Because it removes all the bad ones, all we are left with are the good ones (and the neutral ones). What we then get is an accumulation of good changes, and this accumulations leads us towards the large changes (one word into another in the case of this experiment).

 

In terms of biology, DNA is like the word. It is like a string of letters that makes up the word, but it is limited to just 4 letters (A,T,G and C). And, just as the word "yellow" can be "evolved" into the word "blue", one specific sequence of DNA "letters" can be evolved into another set of DNA "letters".

 

Even though the selection part has a different set of criteria for out experiment from that of biology, there is still selection going on (the specifics of the selection don't matter as as it is the result of that selection is all that is needed for the next step in the process).

 

As for the changes that we did, even in biology there are equivalents. The DNA letters can be added or deleted (and can occur over more than 1 letter at a time too), they can change from one letter to another, and they can be moved around the genome of the organism as well.

 

Now, according to mathematics (specifically the mathematics dealing with algorithms), we can show that because each of the processes we performed in our experiment has a biological equivalent, and that the same sequences of processes are occurring in biological systems, then we can conclude that biology is performing the same process.

 

In other words, biology exhibits evolution. Thus this is evidence that evolution exists in biological systems.

[swansont]

He was the one who asked for the trial part and it was deemed not legal to teach because it was dishonest, the Judge himself noted that ID was not supported by any evidence other than lies. He was not only a Federal Judge, appointed by George Bush, he was a conservative Christian Judge, the ID'ers were ecstatic at first when they found out he was the judge, they expected him to rule in their favor because he was a Conservative Christian appointed by George Bush, they are quoted as saying before the trial that this man knows who butters his bread, lucky for us and sadly for them he was also honest.

The IDers were contending that their view was science, not religion, and the court found otherwise. The trial did not address the correctness of ID or evolution, only whether it was science.

 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science (emphasis added)

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

[Ophiolite]

Hello xxx2000, first an off topic remark: using large font does not enhance your argument, it just makes you look like a small child with crayons.

but what about the existence of evolution process ? what is the evidence that evolution process does exist?

The evidence for the process of evolution is extensive. You probably don't understand how extensive. If you were eighteen and set out read all of it (not study it - just read it - not even understand it, just read it) you would be unable to complete reading it before you died. It falls into a variety of categories, including:

 

1. Palaeontology - multiple sequences of fossils, through time, showing changes in form and function.

2. Comparative anatomy - the presence of homologous structures in birds, bats, bulls and baleen whales is but one example

3. Embryology - the developmental cycle reveals evolutionary connections

4. Genetics - the character of the genome reveals not only the relatedness of organisms, but some of the means by which the differences arose

 

Any one of these sets would be sufficient to demonstrate the reality of evolution. In combination they represent unassailable evidence for the reality of evolution and provide immense data from which the mechanisms can be progressively understood.

 

and how come a superior being like a man can evolve from an inferior being like a bacteria? from where man's superiority comes ?

What is it that makes you think a man is superior to a bacteria? That is very anthropocentric thinking. Bacteria were here long before man and will be here long after him. You have more bacterial cells in your body than you have human cells. If you are so superior, how come you tolerate that?

 

Can you survive in suspended animation for a few million years? Bacteria can.

Can you reproduce yourself every half hour, or quicker? Bacteria can.

Can you survive in and flourish in acid? Bacteria can.

Can you readily exchange genes with other bacteria to enhance your survival potential? Bacteria can.

Etc.

 

So where's the superiority? Oh, I know. Anything we can do is a superior, desirable, positive, first rate, did I mention superior, thing. If we can't do it, then it's not really important.

 

here is my story. see how it fits. there is no such thing as evolution process. if there was anything called evolution then where is the process now?

Alive and kicking. Evolution is a very slow process, nevertheless we have observed it at work in the laboratory and in the field. (Incidentally, we've been using it ourselves as a species for several millenia, domesticating animals and plants. That domestication was evolution.)

 

and since there is no solid substantial evidence of the existence of evolution process,

Wrong.

 

,i dismiss the total concept of evolution.

Fortunately the reality of evolution does not depend upon your ignorance.

 

that's why we don't see the process of evolution now. .

We do see the process of evolution now. If you are open minded I, or another member will be happy to give you references. but you will need to convince me you are open minded enough to read them honestly.

[pantheory]

dear friends

 

this is my first thread. i want to know about Darwin's theory of evolution with evidence. in order to prove darwin's theory of evolution the following things should be proved:

conclusion: man is evolved from monkey

 

reason 1: there was monkeys and not men.

 

reason 2: evolution process takes place.

 

reason 3: man comes out as a result of that process.

 

if anybody establish these reasons with proper evidence, i will be very happy and obliged. fossils do not prove any of the reasons stated above.

 

Present theory goes like this concerning the evolution of man. Man evolved from an ape-like creature roughly 2+ million years ago. The predecessors of apes in evolutionary theory were tailed monkeys. Before monkeys there were lemurs of some type.

 

In the lineage of man there appears to be a number of intermediate species. Surprisingly there is much more fossils that accordingly relate to the lineage of man than there are those that seem to be predecessors of chimps, for instance. There is a great deal of evidence which supports the evolution of man from an ancient creature but to call it proof would be stretching it. Archaeology and anthropology concerning the fossil records are the primary evidence. DNA evidence presently relates to Neanderthals which have been shown to be (DNA evidence) very similar to present day humans but are presently thought to be another species that is not in the direct evolutionary line as modern humans.

Edited July 6, 2011 by pantheory