Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

[Leah]

Well, is it?

 

[Hammster]

Not even evolutionist, if the are honest (and many have been documented) will say it is a proven fact. In fact, many still say that there is NO evidence for macro evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Well, is it?

It is an observed fact.

Proof is a term used in logic not in science.

 

[KerrMetric]

Evolution is an observed fact and also a theory.

The problem is the same word is used for two different things. The change of populations over generations is a fact. the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow are the theory part.

 

[philadiddle]

Seems this has come up umpteen gazillion times lately. Maybe we should just make a thread explaining it and sticky it.

 

[metherion]

Maybe if we do a good enough job here, it will get stickied.

So I will give it a go.
I will refer to 2 types of evolution here. I will label them unequivocally.

Evolution can be the observed fact of population's change over time. This is evidence in things like speciation (macro) and breeding (micro) (both of which have been observed.) This will be referred to as evolution(observed).

Evolution can be the scientific theory explaining why evolution(observed) happens. This will be evolution(theory).


As gluadys has said, 'proven' is a logic term, not a science term.

Evolution(observed) has been observed in nature and in the lab. It is a fact. It happens. Evolution(observed) is explained by evolution(theory). Evolution(theory) is rooted is observations and experiments done on evolution(observed). Evolution(observed) is evidenced not only by animals living today but by the fossil record of animals past.

Evolution(theory) states that over time different traits in a population will change. This will happen by, among other things, mutations and natural selection.

Evolution(theory) does not talk about:
timescale
the origin of life
the origin of the universe
naturalistic militant atheism
morals
God

Evolution(theory) does talk about:
Evolution(observed)
how it happens
why it happens
how it DOESN"T happen (e.g. the Lamarckism is wrong AFAevolution(theory)K)

Metherion

maybe more to come later, I dunno.

 

[notto]

Life in the past was much different than life today. This is an observed fact.

The variation and biodiversity of life changed slowly over time through modification of existing life forms. This is an observed fact.

Evolution is the theory that uses the observed mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations to explain these observed facts.

 

[notto]

In fact, many still say that there is NO evidence for macro evolution.

Then they have not been keeping up on their reading . Speciation is an observed phenomena.

 

[Dannager]

Not even evolutionist, if the are honest (and many have been documented) will say it is a proven fact.

That's because the word "proof" isn't used in actual science. Proof is for maths and alcohol.

In fact, many still say that there is NO evidence for macro evolution.

Totally false.

Evolution is an observed fact, and a strong theory.

 

[Leah]

Sorry about the way I worded the question, guys.

I meant to ask is evolution (or has it ever been) a proven fact of science?

 

[KerrMetric]

Sorry about the way I worded the question, guys.

I meant to ask is evolution (or has it ever been) a proven fact of science?

What do you mean by proven fact?

Theories are not provable only falsifiable.

 

[busterdog]

Not even evolutionist, if the are honest (and many have been documented) will say it is a proven fact. In fact, many still say that there is NO evidence for macro evolution.

The curious thing is always that science doesn't presume to "prove"such things. But you can sure lose your science job or get called unscientific nut for doubting it. Doesn't that mean its "proven" as far as science is concerned?

 

[Leah]

There are many things I don't know and have many questions to ask. But to be honest, I'm uneasy about asking them here because I know there are some people who're impatient and aren't nice.

So, maybe it's best if I just study evolution and science on my own.

Thanks for the replies, btw.

 

[Smidlee]

There are many things I don't know and have many questions to ask. But to be honest, I'm uneasy about asking them here because I know there are some people who're impatient and aren't nice.

So, maybe it's best if I just study evolution and science on my own.

Thanks for the replies, btw.

Studying for yourself is always recommended even when it comes to Bible study. But to answer your question I turn to Denton, who is no friend to creationist which I am. Denton mention the facts that Darwinism ( (Neo-Darwinism that is )mutation plus natural-selection) does have an impact on nature and can be observed. Yet it ridiculous to believe Darwinism can explain the patterns we find in living thing. His hope and faith as well as other scientist is that someday a science messiah (I use messiah in the sense as the one who has all the answers) will appear and explain how and why these pattern and complexes that we found in the living cell.

The reason why scientists hold on the Neo-Darwinism (mutation plus NS) as Denton put it is this is all they got and not because it's a good theory. As one scientist said before, one of the worst defense for any scientific theory is " it's the best we've got."

Notice the defense that evolution doesn't deal with the "Origin of Life" is also a poor defense for there is so many other origins that evolution has to deal with that it can't, Like the origins of sex,eyes,brain,heart,or any other complexes in life.

 

[KerrMetric]

evolution has to deal with that it can't, Like the origins of sex,eyes,brain,heart,or any other complexes in life.

Complete rubbish. Use Google!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[notto]

Studying for yourself is always recommended even when it comes to Bible study. But to answer your question I turn to Denton, who is no friend to creationist which I am. Denton mention the facts that Darwinism ( (Neo-Darwinism that is )mutation plus natural-selection) does have an impact on nature and can be observed. Yet it ridiculous to believe Darwinism can explain the patterns we find in living thing. His hope and faith as well as other scientist is that someday a science messiah (I use messiah in the sense as the one who has all the answers) will appear and explain how and why these pattern and complexes that we found in the living cell.

The reason why scientists hold on the Neo-Darwinism (mutation plus NS) as Denton put it is this is all they got and not because it's a good theory. As one scientist said before, one of the worst defense for any scientific theory is " it's the best we've got."

Notice the defense that evolution doesn't deal with the "Origin of Life" is also a poor defense for there is so many other origins that evolution has to deal with that it can't, Like the origins of sex,eyes,brain,heart,or any other complexes in life.

You certainly would be better to study it for yourself based on replies like this.

Be sure you actually study from a book written by somebody who is familiar with biology and what we actually know.

If you rely on emotional appeals such as this response, you really won't know more about evolution than when you began.

What this poster says here is nonsense and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the actual science of biology and how evolution ties all we know about animal physiology, genetics, and the fossil record together. (Or they are just deliberately trying to convince you of something they know not to be true). You will notice that Smidlee makes an awful lot of assertions but doesn't really deliver any information to help you understand evolution. There are also few outright lies in there as well. Evolution explains what we see in the diversity and patters of life quite well. That is why there is nearly universal consensus among biologists regardless of their age, race, religious background, sex, political affiliate, or socioeconomic background that evolution is the explanation for diversity of life and that the evidence converges around it as a valid theory. All creationists can offer to counter this fact is to suggest that it is a devil led conspiracy or some other such nonsense.


Ask your questions. If they are asked honestly, they will be answered honestly.

Start by reading through this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Ask those questions, but pay attention to the evidence, how the evidence can be falsified, and how the pieces of evidence fit together and how they are explained by the theory. If you can stick with it and actually understand the evidence, you will most likely see why all those scientists accept it and why it is only rejected based on religious, not scientific reasons.

 

[wartorious]

Evolution is an extremely good theory, it is the best we have. the theory of Gravity is a good theory too. Science that cannot be falsified cannot be advanced any further and is bad science.

I would personally say there is no doubt in my mind as to how we are here. Its an extremely foolish thing to say that evolution cannot explain the complexities of life, it can!

Further more I do believe that most creationists don't understand evolution well enough to suggest its false and there theory right. can a blind man reliably argue the sky is really red?

 

[Key]

Evolution, is a over used term, by which several Theories are lumped together under the banner of.

Evolution is Broken down into several aspects, Three major ones, and a variety of minor ones. We are only going to look at the major ones.

The First aspect of Evolution is Micro, Sometimes called Adaptation. This is changes within the Species, for it to be a true adaptation it must be a benefit to survival. Not all evolutionary changes in this platform are adaptations, and not all are adaptations are evolutionary changes. This is mostly affected by some aspects, the strongest ones are Selection and genetic drift (genetic flow applies to populations, drift to Individuals). In this front, we have observed, and documented a variety of changes. However, all changes we have witnessed are changes that were allowances in the original genetic code of the originator for the process. IE: the DNA itself has not changed, only the Allele's in it.

Examples are: Populations going from all blue eyes to all brown eyes.

Another Example: offspring having mixed parental traits, is another example. IE: "look she has her mothers eyes, and her fathers hair"

The Second Process is Macro, which we have observed only though speculation built off the fossils we have found. We can not validate if we are correct in our assumptions regarding this, however, given what we have found (as limited as it is), we believe that the process can take this direction, and progress in this manner.

Now, The last aspect of Evolution, is the Single Ancestor, or Origin Theory, that being that all life and all it's diversity originated from a single life from, or type of life from. I am not really aware of any from of evidence we have in this direction, to support this claim. But I am sure others will step up to plate to provide it.

Now, is Evolution a "Fact" as far as we can grasp a fact?

In the Micro sense, we have observed it as natural occurrence, as such, it is a viable, dependable model, by which research and development can be built off of. It is widely used in medical research, for the development of vaccinations, and antibiotics. It is also used in many of our everyday aspects of life, so one might say that it is as close to a fact as you can get, as far as we can consider it a fact (IE: a Theory can not be a fact, but the evidence by which we build the Theory is a Fact, in this case, the Evidence is abundant)

Macro, as it is right now, is little more then a Hypothesis, that has little to no practical application in biological/ "Scientific" research and development. However, it has been used in the Psychology field extensively. Is it a dependable model in that front? I am not sure. Again, I believe some one might be able to provide viable information regarding this.

For the life of me, I can not think of any application or evidence for the Origin Theory aspect of Evolution, so I am going to leave that floor open to someone else as well.

Now, No one that I know of, has any Objection to Micro, it is a viable, workable, and sound Theory. That provides a working base for many advancements in the fields of biological science, as well as many other benifits in our every day lives.


It is the Macro, and Origin, that different groups like ID, and Creationist have issues with.

Anyway, Hope this Helps you out.

God Bless

Key

 

[notto]

The Second Process is Macro, which we have observed only though speculation built off the fossils we have found. We can not validate if we are correct in our assumptions regarding this, however, given what we have found (as limited as it is), we believe that the process can take this direction, and progress in this manner.

Can you define macroevolutoin for us? Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab.

Macroevolution can be directly observed.

There are no assumptions to it.

If you are talking about something other than speciation, then whatever it is you are talking about, it is not macroevolution.

These terms have meanings. What is the specific definition of macroevolution you are using in relation to your comments?

 

[wartorious]

I would like to say that your post, Key, was very good and I recommend reading it.

Now, The last aspect of Evolution, is the Single Ancestor, or Origin Theory, that being that all life and all it's diversity originated from a single life from, or type of life from. I am not really aware of any from of evidence we have in this direction, to support this claim. But I am sure others will step up to plate to provide it.

well I would suggest that bone structures support Single Ancestor theory. Bat for example have 5 fingers, as do many fish, prime apes and many others. mammals all have many very similar characteristics, for example being warm blooded, large brained, quick and powerful, needing large amounts of food. it would seem there are large pockets of similar kinds of creatures which appear to have common ancestry, one large evolutionary change spawning a multitude of creatures that change depending on survival of the fittest, adaptation, mutation and the environment there in. This would suggest a few key creature forms, common ancestors, that were extremely successful and spawned many other forms. this trend would also suggest that the first life was alike and changed and spread over the world.