Is evolution a fact?

Originally posted by luciddream
Most of these thread and spent explaining Abiogenesis is not Evolution, then another half explaining why monkeys are still here concept.

reply to post by borntowatch

 

Do you think wolves and dogs are the same species?

Did you know dogs never existed?

Or are you going to call Wolf to Dog a micro evolution? lol

Anti-Evolutionist use this Micro/Macro evolution as a way to discredit the entire theory and cherry pick and separate the ones that support it. "Oh sht, this supports it, better label it something else and tare it away from the theory"

No I am not, I cant be bothered.
How about this explains it to you
www.pbs.org...

"The dog, Canis familiaris, is a direct descendent of the gray wolf, Canis lupus: In other words, dogs as we know them are domesticated wolves. Not only their behavior changed; domestic dogs are different in form from wolves, mainly smaller and with shorter muzzles and smaller teeth. '


All dogs are descended from wolves according to evolutionists, notme

Look I cant be bothered, good luck with what you believe, I endorse your right to believe what you want

Evolutionists can tell us what happen after the "big bang" but can't tell us what happen before it (including stephen hawking), therefore not a fact.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge which explains natural phenomena in our universe.

God is supernatural.

How can science be used to prove or disprove supernatural phenomena? The moment you attempt to use science to prove or disprove God is the moment you are no longer engaged in science.

Some things I understand about evolution.

There is a chemical mechanism that allows for it, That is, there is DNA and RNA, that contain coding. when the coding is changed, the Organism changes. Sometimes minimally, sometimes catastrophically, sometimes it's a "Goldilocks mutation", meaning it allows the organism to function in a manner more fitting to it's environment.
That mutation survives, and spreads.

One animal doesn't "turn into" another animal. It's more like "Fades into"....two groups of the same species are suddenly separated. They both survive, but as time goes on, they differentiate. 100 years apart, it might be just a color change, 500 years, perhaps color, and size....Yet if reintroduced to each other, they can still produce viable offspring. then a thousand years, 2 thousand years. Even more noticeable differences. Yet, still, they can mate. and most offspring survive. 500,000 years go by..The animals may only remotely resemble the same species.
One has taken up burrowing, and one to the trees. Still similar enough to resemble one another a bit. Like Different species of Squirrels. But now, the Genes, and perhaps even the layout of the chromosomes is different.
They mate now, and produce non-fertile offspring or none at all.

There is a record in the geology of our planet, that has preserved many different animals. Many are obviously related by structure. Lots of them show a relatively seamless order of change that makes their evolutionary journey pretty obvious. Others, not so much..There are gaps. Fossils are matters of chance. We learn from what we find.

Evolution does not have a purpose, or a goal. Chemicals rearrange, and that is reflected in the end product, the organism. Success does not always mean more complex, just that an organism survives and reproduces.


I promised I would stay out of this never ending argument. but I broke my own promise.

Originally posted by Erbal
Science is the pursuit of knowledge which explains natural phenomena in our universe.

God is supernatural.

How can science be used to prove or disprove supernatural phenomena? The moment you attempt to use science to prove or disprove God is the moment you are no longer engaged in science.

Do not limit yourself. Supernatural is just natural that haven't been revealed yet. On some level you can see all these things as tricks being used to keep our souls interested. Some of them are amazing to me but on another level I know they are just tricks. If you know everything and how it works then everything becomes very easy.

Originally posted by Erbal
Science is the pursuit of knowledge which explains natural phenomena in our universe.

God is supernatural.

How can science be used to prove or disprove supernatural phenomena? The moment you attempt to use science to prove or disprove God is the moment you are no longer engaged in science.

If a God manifests itself in some way within the natural world, why couldn't it be measured and detected?

If a God doesn't manifest itself in some way within the natural world, what's the difference between it and something that doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Inanimate matter cannot 'self-replicate' - copying something requires awareness.

Oh, dear...never grown a crystal garden?

Those crystals must all be allive in order to replicate like that.....Interesting to note that these inanimate self replicators can also pass on heritable traits.

ETA - some info...

Evolution is a fact. It happens. Get over it. I'm not getting into the strawman argument of the hypothesis of Abiogenesis. If you can't understand why that is a strawman argument, you are being willfully ignorant.

As stated previously, the Theory of Evolution (as any scientific theory) is nothing more than a explanation of the facts that are observable, testable, can be replicated, and independently verified (i.e. empiracle and objective evidence).

Here are a few of facts of evolution:
Natural Selection
Artificial Selection
Heredity through gene transciption, using DNA, by way of mutations and deletions
Sexual and Asexual reproduction
Speciation

Want more specific facts:
Morphology from water to land (Tiktaalik)
Morphology of whales/dolphins from land mammals
The origins of the vertebrate skeleton
The origin and history of teeth
Toxin resistance in snakes and clams
Antibiotic resistance in viral strains

Feel free to educate yourself on the evidence of these facts . . . but, they are facts. They have and do happen.

Furthermore, not one new discovery in biology, zoology, paleontology, molecular biology, or biochemistry has ever gone against evolutionary theory. Certain discoveries modify our knowledge, but never contradict. If any new advancement had (such as the discovery of DNA and its mapping) . . . It would have shattered Darwin's predictions long ago.

Darwin's original theory predicted a method to heredity . . . Mendel's gene theory confirmed this prediction. Mendel's original theory predicted a mechanism to encode these genes . . . the discovery of DNA confirmed this prediction. Evolutionary Theory predicted this mechanism go through mutations and deleterious events . . . subsequent mapping and study confirmed this prediction. Even to the point where we can pin-point the exact telomeres that fused to seperate hominids from our closest ape ancestor, the chimpanzee. Which only backs up descent and doesn't support creation or design.

Yes . . . evolution is a fact.

Originally posted by solomons path
Furthermore, not one new discovery in biology, zoology, paleontology, molecular biology, or biochemistry has ever gone against evolutionary theory.

Not one new discovery will. As you said it's a fact.

Originally posted by solomons pathCertain discoveries modify our knowledge, but never contradict. If any new advancement had (such as the discovery of DNA and its mapping) . . . It would have shattered Darwin's predictions long ago.

I'm not sure how DNA and it's mapping could actually contradict evolution. What do you mean? I don't think there's anything that could unseat the theory until we look at it from a different point of view. Saying the whole theory is a fact is not true. Evolution is a theory of every aspect of life, and people treat it as if we understand every aspect. It's not true.

There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

I think most people that are on the Old Earth Intelligent Design side, have no problem with most of what Evolution encompasses in it's own theory. Some of the more reaching aspects are what we find problems with. Macro-Evolution and Common Descent are a few. Some throw in Abiogenesis, because it has to do with the emergence of life. These are extrapolations, that are not fully known.

Originally posted by addygrace
There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is when two 'unrelated' species acquire a similar trait. Finding a 100 million year old fossilized giraffe would not be an example of convergent evolution..

Originally posted by addygrace
There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

I'm not really sure what convergent evolution has to do with the geological column. Perhaps you could explain this. Thanks for bringing up convergent evolution because I had a completely wrong picture in my head. I was thinking more along the lines of species becoming sub species in separate environments evolving at the same time, rather than unrelated organisms picking up similar traits. This is why I enjoy this site and these debates. Always learning

reply to post by rockintitz


This is how I explain evolution to people:

1. Two people have sex
2. Their kid is born with hair all over his body (hypertrichosis)
3. Hairy man then passes his genes to his offspring who then also have hair all over their bodies
4. A mass plague wipes out the village leaving only him and his family alive because they also happen to have a variation in genes that makes them unsusceptible to the plague.
5. Human beings from that point forward are furry.

An extreme example but that's how I came to understand it more and it's helped a lot of people in conversations where I got the "I ain't no monkey!" exclamations.

reply to post by rockintitz


YAAAAAY!!!!

I'd like to bring forth an unforgiving point in the "evolutionist" backslash "evolutionist" viewpoint. I have never heard a solid argument against this.

I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO HELP YOU OUT WITH THIS ONE!

Please do not say evolution is a fact, because it isn't. If you can prove to me 100% that evolution is indeed a fact, then please do.

That's the hilarious part.. Evolution *IS* a fact, and I shall now proceed to provide evidence for it, right as soon as I finish answering the rest of your questions!

YAY!

Please explain to me how living matter can arise through non-living matter. Please. So far no evolutionary theorists have ever given a mechanism for that to happen. Please provide a link.

This is because Evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!!!

YAY!!! THIS IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!!! YAY!!

Please explain how the Cambrian explosion could have occurred

The emergance of multicellular life forms, coupled with specific cells to manage reproduction....

YAY!!!!

through what even Darwin called an anomaly, more or less.

And that doesn't matter! YAY!!!

Evolution is Modification with Descent!

This means that mutations from one generation compound upon each-other, and through the process of natural selection, a given population will change gradually over time due to the more successful mutations accruing, and the less successful mutations dying out!

YAY!

According to the anthropic principle, life would not, nor could not, produce life forms as we know them, if the parameters of our universe were not so precisely "fine-tuned" to be able to create life.

And this argument is STUPID!!! YAY!!!

According to the Stupid Theory, Your address would have to be FINELY TUNED to where you live, for mail to ever find you at all!

IT must be a miracle!

If your address was not PRECISELY what was on the letters you receive, you would NEVER GET THEM!

YAY!

I've heard many times from evolutionists how life is inevitable. More than that, I've actually heard from many evolutionary scientists, that the evolutionary theory, is in fact, a fact.
Please, please prove that. Because as far as I know, earth is the only planet you can use to back your theory up with.

Evolution is a fact because We have actually observed it occurring... YAY!!!

So according to "fact" Life can arise from a non-living object into living matter.

THIS IS NOT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!! YAY!!!!

THIS IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!! YAY!!!

Look, I'm not trying to prove what is or what was. All I'm asking is for you to provide an undeniable link as to what is declared as fact.

Go find a dictionary.... look up the word "Evolution", and type the definition onto this webspace/zone... thread... thing....

What is an evolutionary fact? I haven't seen one yet.

Silly person... you don't know what evolution means yet!!!

YAY!!!

I don't believe which way or the other, but I do believe that if you call it a fact, then it should be a fact,

SEMANTICS!!! YAY!!!!



/sarcasm

Watch this playlist: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by solomons path
Furthermore, not one new discovery in biology, zoology, paleontology, molecular biology, or biochemistry has ever gone against evolutionary theory.

Not one new discovery will. As you said it's a fact.

Originally posted by solomons pathCertain discoveries modify our knowledge, but never contradict. If any new advancement had (such as the discovery of DNA and its mapping) . . . It would have shattered Darwin's predictions long ago.

I'm not sure how DNA and it's mapping could actually contradict evolution. What do you mean? I don't think there's anything that could unseat the theory until we look at it from a different point of view. Saying the whole theory is a fact is not true. Evolution is a theory of every aspect of life, and people treat it as if we understand every aspect. It's not true.

There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

I think most people that are on the Old Earth Intelligent Design side, have no problem with most of what Evolution encompasses in it's own theory. Some of the more reaching aspects are what we find problems with. Macro-Evolution and Common Descent are a few. Some throw in Abiogenesis, because it has to do with the emergence of life. These are extrapolations, that are not fully known.

First, convergence is just as Rhino has described above . . . Simply put convergence means we find the same or similar sequence not because it came from the same source (descent), but because it serves the same function. For example, two distinct lines of primitive organisms developing excretory systems on different hemispheres of primordial Earth. So, as stated above, I don't see how that relates to the geological column.

Second, DNA doesn't contradict anything in Evolutionary Theory . . . but, its discovery could have if Evolutionary Theory was unsound or off in its predictions. If we found that DNA replicated without mutations or deleterious events . . . it would have proved descent through modification false. Something Darwin or Mendel would not have been able to "prove" at the time of their predictions. In fact, if that is how we found DNA to act, it would strengthen the "design" argument and been the first actual evidence against descent. Design can't be used as even a hypothesis, at this point, because there has been no observations to back it. To this point "design" is simply a philosophical notion.

While "design" proponents may not agree with common descent, the discovery of DNA and the mountains of evidence gained through sequencing only back up descent . . . common descent through modification. Simply study of phylogenetic trees prove this hypothesis and predictions on its function.

I know there are some in this forum, maybe Rhinoceros(?), that work in genetics or biochemistry, so maybe they could provide a more detailed explanation. I don't work in that field, but I do know comparisons of cytochrome-c protein is reliable to show changes over large time scales and confirms exactly what we would expect to see, if common descent were true.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by addygrace
There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is when two 'unrelated' species acquire a similar trait. Finding a 100 million year old fossilized giraffe would not be an example of convergent evolution..

Yes it would.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
According to the Stupid Theory, Your address would have to be FINELY TUNED to where you live, for mail to ever find you at all!

IT must be a miracle!

If your address was not PRECISELY what was on the letters you receive, you would NEVER GET THEM!

That's not the same as the fine tune argument. You're actually helping the OP out with this one. Your address is actually FINELY TUNED to receive mail. If it wasn't we wouldn't worry about addresses at all, and just put letters in the mail and know they will end up where they need to go.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by addygrace
There really isn't anything that could falsify evolution. I've heard someone suggest finding a certain animal in the wrong geologic time scale, but this would just be called Convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is when two 'unrelated' species acquire a similar trait. Finding a 100 million year old fossilized giraffe would not be an example of convergent evolution..

Yes it would.

Uhm . . . no it wouldn't. You seem to be mistaken as to what constitutes convergent evolution. Think wings in bats and birds . . . or eyes in all animals. Traits that all perform the same function, but do not arise through descent.

A kind of evolution wherein organisms evolve structures that have similar (analogous) structures or functions in spite of their evolutionary ancestors being very dissimilar or unrelated.

Biology online dictionary

Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages.

Princeton

Convergent evolution is the process by which unrelated or distantly related organisms evolve similar body forms, coloration, organs, and adaptations.

UTexas Zoology

Convergent evolution describes the acquisition of the same biological trait in unrelated lineages

Wiki

reply to post by addygrace

That's not the same as the fine tune argument. You're actually helping the OP out with this one. Your address is actually FINELY TUNED to receive mail. If it wasn't we wouldn't worry about addresses at all, and just put letters in the mail and know they will end up where they need to go.

The fine tuning argument is stupid.

The universe isn't fine tuned for our kind of life....

Our kind of life is the sort that one would expect in a universe with the constants as they are now.

If the universe had different constants, it would have different forms of life.


The fine tuning argument is confusing the order of causation.... like saying that your address is fine tuned to receive EXACTLY the type of mail that goes to you.

IT's the exact opposite of reality.

Your address isn't fine tuned to receive your mail... Your mail is addressed to your Address.

If you had a different address, your mail would be sent to that different address.

Conversely, if the universe had different constants, it would have a different kind of life.


The universe isn't fine tuned for our form of life... Our form of life is fine tuned for the universe.

The entire argument is fallacious, and backwards.

reply to post by rockintitz


Evolution is considered scientific fact. While that distinction carries merit, it is a long way from actual fact.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by addygrace

 

That's not the same as the fine tune argument. You're actually helping the OP out with this one. Your address is actually FINELY TUNED to receive mail. If it wasn't we wouldn't worry about addresses at all, and just put letters in the mail and know they will end up where they need to go.

The fine tuning argument is stupid.

The universe isn't fine tuned for our kind of life....

Our kind of life is the sort that one would expect in a universe with the constants as they are now.

If the universe had different constants, it would have different forms of life.


The fine tuning argument is confusing the order of causation.... like saying that your address is fine tuned to receive EXACTLY the type of mail that goes to you.

IT's the exact opposite of reality.

Your address isn't fine tuned to receive your mail... Your mail is addressed to your Address.

If you had a different address, your mail would be sent to that different address.

Conversely, if the universe had different constants, it would have a different kind of life.


The universe isn't fine tuned for our form of life... Our form of life is fine tuned for the universe.

The entire argument is fallacious, and backwards.

edit on 2-5-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

I'm just saying the address example is an example of something being finely tuned. As for the universe being finely tuned to our form of life, I actually think it is, but you don't think so because you don't believe in a personal God.