Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

[KerrMetric]

The First aspect of Evolution is Micro, Sometimes called Adaptation.

Not a definition of microevolution I'm afraid.

The Second Process is Macro, which we have observed only though speculation built off the fossils we have found.

Here you don't even attempt a definition, instead you go straight to an unsupported statement based upon personal understanding or lack thereof.

Now, No one that I know of, has any Objection to Micro,

If you knew the history of the creationist movement then you would know that even "micro" used to be denied by creationists.

 

[Smidlee]

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

Strange since there more hint of emotional response from your post than mine. My post seems pretty direct and to the point. Just because you disagree with me (which is fine with me) doesn't make it an emotional response. Denton isn't the only scientist honest enough (as there has been many in the past) to admit the serious short coming of the theory of evolution as it stands today.

 

[notto]

Strange since there more hint of emotional response from your post than mine. My post seems pretty direct and to the point. Just because you disagree with me (which is fine with me) doesn't make it an emotional response. Denton isn't the only scientist honest enough to admit the serious short coming of the theory of evolution as it stands today.

Calling something ridiculous and base on hope and faith as a way to persuade somebody to not believe it without proving any supporting evidence as to why it is ridiculous and based on hope and faith is an emotional appeal.

The use of the word science messiah is another nice emotional touch that really doesn't match reality.

I don't simply disagree with you, I think that your response is devoid of any valid information about evolution and is not particularly helpful to the original poster.

What valid information on the theory of evolution do you have to provide? What objective and observable evidence do you have that contradicts the theory or falsifies it?

All you have presented so far is emotionally charged words and assertions.

 

[Smidlee]

Calling something ridiculous and base on hope and faith as a way to persuade somebody to not believe it without proving any supporting evidence as to why it is ridiculous and based on hope and faith is an emotional appeal.

Yet Denton has put his faith into future science. He stated himself he had faith that science will one day produce the answers. It seems Denton's faith explains why he is so open about his doubts over Darwinism; He wants to be remembered, as with the others like him, when the answers do reveals themselves. Now Behe stated he thinks science will never fill this gaps but only will get bigger. My faith is still in creation and not in future science.
Denton also made the comment something like if aliens came to Earth today to visit mankind and we told them how everything evolved through Darwinism they would laugh at how ridiculous our explanation was. While I don't remember Denton word for word yet I agree with him as it stands now it sounds ridiculous.

 

[notto]

Yet Denton has put his faith into future science. He stated himself he had faith that science will one day produce the answers. It seems Denton's faith explains why he is so open about his doubts over Darwinism; He wants to be remembered, as with the others like him, when the answers do reveals themselves. Now Behe stated he thinks science will never fill this gaps but only will get bigger. My faith is still in creation and not in future science.
Denton also made the comment something like if aliens came to Earth today to visit mankind and we told them how everything evolved through Darwinism they would laugh at how ridiculous our explanation was. While I don't remember Denton word for word yet I agree with him as it stands now it sounds ridiculous.

And unless you can provide the evidence these conclusions are based on they are meaningless and based on nothing but emotional appeal and perhaps an appeal to authority.

What peer reviewed and critiqued conclusions does Denton offer that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution? What independent lines of evidence support this conclusion? What data was used to reach these conclusions? Where can I read his original research on the subject and examine these critiqued and reviewed conclusions?

 

[KerrMetric]

Yet Denton has put his faith into future science. He stated himself he had faith that science will one day produce the answers. It seems Denton faith explains why he is so open about he doubt over Darwinism; He wants to be remember as with the others like him when the answers do reveals themselves. Now Behe stated he thinks science will never fill this gaps but only will get bigger. My faith is still in creation and not future science.

When did Denton write his book "Evolution: A theory in crisis"?

Hmmm - 22 years ago.

Did Denton somewhat change his mind on this topic?

Why, I think he did in his 1998 book. He still has a teleological slant but he is not an ID guy anymore.

Did Denton ask for his name to be removed from his ID buddies website for the Discovery Institute?

Well yes as it happens he did because he's not an ID guy seemingly.

 

[Key]

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.

I am so glad you brought this up. Yes. Sub Species have been observed to an extent.

However, to fully grasp this and how or if it supports Macro Evolution, you would first need to define what the demand of proof was.

As it stands, there is some dispute as to where the line "Species" is drawn. However, Species, is mostly defined as a group of animals that CAN mate and produce viable offspring.

IE: for example, a donkey is part of the Equus Genus, which is a sub group of the Equidae family, which, places Horse and Donkeys in the same family, but because they can not produce viable offspring, they are not the same species. Mules to date have not been able to reproduce.

Now, Donkeys, or Equus, have sub species, one being the Asinus, which would be the domesticated donkey. but the Ferus, which is the wild horse is also part of the Genus of Equus, but not part of domesticated donkey species. But equally so, can not provide viable offspring with the donkey.

However, that is what many people think of, but that is not always the case, in some cases, they may very well be able to produce viable off spring, but do not interbreed for one reason or another.

Now, all that we have done to date, has only provided the later, where the animals could breed, but chose not to, we have not provided or gotten to the point where the genetic code has changed so much so they could not breed.

I am not going to get into ring species, and all that, just for the sake of simplicity. But, as it stands, yes, we have generated a type of species sub division , but, nothing beyond what simple genetic drift would do, or what distance/barrier might accomplish.

IE: red ants won't breed with the black ants, not because they can't, but because they won't.

Another fine example might be, a in the Equus caballus where a "shire" and a "miniature horse" can not breed with each other, simply because of size issue. the miniature horse being just shy of 3ft tall, and weigh around 150 pounds, and the Shire being just a hair over 6 feet tall, and weighing just shy of 2000 pounds.

But this is only because of a very in dispute issue with what a species truly is.

As it stands, we have not yet, derived a species where the genetic code was truly different to the point that they could not breed, only that they would not breed, or maybe in the case of fruit flies, their genetic code may have allowed breeding, but because of variants in the allele's which control the shape and size of their reproductive organs they may not "fit" together anymore (insects have very complex reproductive parts), but of that, I don't have any info, I am sorry.

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

In the case that I am applying it, would be for the creation of the First type of Species division, not the second type. Where the Genetic Code had changed to the point to disallow interbreeding. (or just the change of a genetic code to not align with the originator, in the case of things like bacteria where lateral gene transfer would no longer be possible.)

But thank you for bringing this to the front. Very good point, I should have made that clear, of which type of genetic species division I would have required to support Macro, and what we have accomplished so far.

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

I suppose you could look at that way.

But that does not offer support, in the means of evidence, it is only a hypothesis at that point, at best. In the case, this could mean that, but we have no way to validate that it does mean that, or even if it really points in that direction, or do we only think it does, because we have been told that it does. There is a lot of power in suggestion. Not to say that is the case, or is not the case. Just saying that what we have, does not offer validity, in one way or the other.

See with the Originator Theory, there is the demand not only of groups (IE: bats and Humans have five fingers-Which would have been a great example!- But I was unaware that fish had recognized fingers, because as far as I know, fish do not have viable limbs) but all diversity of life (IE: Horses have only one "Finger") as a whole to originate from a single start. Add that to the issues of vast diversity, IE: The diversity between say an Ant and a Blue Whale,

Things of this issue, would offer some issues with the idea that they stemmed from the same ancestor. There might be common traits, but, is that enough? What about the different traits. In the fields of Science and Classification, both similarities and differences carry the same weight, and the same consideration. In some cases, the differences carry far more weight then the similarities, IE: when one gets to the spices level (IE: Macro)

Not to say that some things don't make you "Hummmm?" and ponder if there is some truth to this, but, is that truly support, or is that just a hypothesis, that has stuck, only because a better idea has not come along?

But my desire here is not try and down play Evolution.

But. Good points, all of them.

Thank you for your wonderful posts.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Smidlee]

When did Denton write his book "Evolution: A theory in crisis"?

Hmmm - 22 years ago.

Did Denton somewhat change his mind on this topic?

Why, I think he did in his 1998 book. He still has a teleological slant but he is not an ID guy anymore.

Did Denton ask for his name to be removed from his ID buddies website for the Discovery Institute?

Well yes as it happens he did because he's not an ID guy seemingly.

BINGO; Which is exactly why I used Denton as an example as non-creationist as well as a non-ID as he made very clear when he made these other statements. I never implied nor thought Denton as a fan of ID. If I used a ID or creationist then the replied as seen here would be only a emotional mad creationist/ID would have doubts over Darwinism. It's false to think that only a creationist find many of these evolution explanation a little ridiculous.

 

[KerrMetric]

BINGO; Which is exactly why I used Denton as an example as non-creationist as well as a non-ID as he made very clear when he made these other statements. I never implied nor thought Denton as a fan of ID. If I used a ID or creationist then the replied as seen here would be only a emotional mad creationist/ID would have doubts over Darwinism. It's false to think that only a creationist find many of these evolution explanation a little ridiculous.

BINGO SQUARED buddy.

When Denton made these statements and for some years afterwards he was ID all the way and was a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute from its early days. He was a very strong ID proponent back then.

You don't think he was a Senior Fellow there and wasn't ID do you? - LOL

He changed his tune in the late 1990's, resigned from the Discovery Institute and asked them to remove references to him on their website.

So let's not carry on the ruse he was non-ID at that time, OK?

 

[KerrMetric]

Mules to date have not been able to reproduce.

Ooops - mules have reproduced with horses. Very rare but it has occurred.

 

[gluadys]

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?

Well you are still using the word "proven" and that is still not scientific terminology.

But evolution is an observed fact. So if seeing something with your own eyes constitutes "proof" you could say it is "proven" because it has been observed.

Scientists, though, would call what you see "evidence" not "proof".

 

[Smidlee]

dp.......

 

[Smidlee]

dp.......

 

[Smidlee]

So let's not carry on the ruse he was non-ID at that time, OK?

I stated I never implied he was a ID. When I heard him (I didn't even know about the ID movement until around 5 years ago) he made it clear then he wasn't a ID. So I took he word he wasn't. Since I learn of him in these recent years it was made obvious by him he didn't want to be identify ID.
Now if he was a ID in the 90's or not really not the topic as I knew neither at the time. (I can see how he first was a ID as a critic of Darwinism but back out with thing heated up later with ID)

 

[KerrMetric]

I stated I never implied he was a ID. When I heard him (I didn't even know about the ID movement until around 5 years ago) he made it clear then he wasn't a ID. So I took he word he wasn't. Since I learn of him in these recent years it was made obvious by him he didn't want to be identify ID.
Now if he was a ID in the 90's or not really not the topic as I knew neither at the time. (I can see how he first was a ID as a critic of Darwinism but back out with thing heated up later with ID)

Perhaps you didn't know BUT you see the point I was making? It is very germane that when he wrote his 1985 critique and for some years after he was ID - and not just on the periphery, he was a Senior Fellow of the bastion of the ID movement the Discovery Institute. He is not only non-ID now but he has backtracked considerably. In fact I believe he fully accepts common descent these days.

 

[Key]

Ooops - mules have reproduced with horses. Very rare but it has occurred.

Cum mula peperit

God Bless

Key

 

[gluadys]

I am so glad you brought this up. Yes. Sub Species have been observed to an extent.

However, to fully grasp this and how or if it supports Macro Evolution, you would first need to define what the demand of proof was.

I am a little puzzled. I have read the post through, and I agree, one needs to define "what the demand of proof was." But I can't find where you have defined it. Am I missing something?

As it stands, there is some dispute as to where the line "Species" is drawn. However, Species, is mostly defined as a group of animals that CAN mate and produce viable offspring.

I have usually seen "species" defined as a population whose members CAN and DO mate and produce viable offspring.

However, that is what many people think of, but that is not always the case, in some cases, they may very well be able to produce viable off spring, but do not interbreed for one reason or another.

Yes, and if that is included in the definition, then these would be legitimately assigned to different species.

I think that is appropriate, because not mating with members of the other group for any reason is just as effective a barrier to gene flow as inability to do so.

but because of variants in the allele's which control the shape and size of their reproductive organs they may not "fit" together anymore (insects have very complex reproductive parts), but of that, I don't have any info, I am sorry.

Again, since this would effectively cut off gene flow between them, why would it not be a warrant for classifying them as different species?

But that does not offer support, in the means of evidence, it is only a hypothesis at that point, at best.

A good theory is supported by strong evidence. But a good theory also has another quality. It explains the evidence found.

The evidence wartorious referred to is well-explained by evolution. I don't know of another theory which matches evolution for explaining this type of evidence.

See with the Originator Theory, there is the demand not only of groups (IE: bats and Humans have five fingers-Which would have been a great example!- But I was unaware that fish had recognized fingers, because as far as I know, fish do not have viable limbs) but all diversity of life (IE: Horses have only one "Finger") as a whole to originate from a single start.

Are you really that unfamiliar with the structure of the tetrapod limb? It is such a basic text-book example. Surely you know that the bat wing is supported by a "five-finger" structure, that some fish have limb-like lobes at the base of the fin, and early tetrapods show similar limbs but with digits in which the typical bones of the ray-fin are fused into fingers, and that the horse single toe is a modification of a three-toed structure which in turn was a modification of a five-toed limb.

Add that to the issues of vast diversity, IE: The diversity between say an Ant and a Blue Whale,

Seems to me that is exactly what evolution does explain so well, especially through cladistics.

There might be common traits, but, is that enough? What about the different traits. In the fields of Science and Classification, both similarities and differences carry the same weight, and the same consideration. In some cases, the differences carry far more weight then the similarities, IE: when one gets to the spices level (IE: Macro)

Yes, similarities and differences are both important in cladistics. That is precisely what is studied. Most important is discerning the pattern of similarities and differences.

I don't know how one gets the nested hierarchy pattern other than through evolution.

 

[notto]

In the case that I am applying it, would be for the creation of the First type of Species division, not the second type.

Yet you don't really explain why. The speciation we have observed is macroevolution and therefor the observation of evolution.

Why are the changes in genetic code that lead to the speciation we have observed not macroevolution?

Unless you can objectively answer this question you are simply cherrypicking.

Evolution has been observed because speciation has been observed.

You are applying unneeded and artificial lines around it. If things don't breed in nature, they are different species.

That is all that matters in evolution.

 

[Key]

So let's not carry on the ruse he was non-ID at that time, OK?

Hummm.. can you provide any proof of the claim that he was an ID'ist, or are you just saying that, because you think that is true?

Here is an Interview With him, about the Book in Question, so that both you and Smidlee can enjoy.

I did not see any reference to ID, or anything of that ilk.

Maybe you should do some research on the matter, and have some support for your stand before you make these claims of yours.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Jase]

If you knew the history of the creationist movement then you would know that even "micro" used to be denied by creationists.

And in some cases, is still denied by some overzealous creationists. Archaeologist has stated he rejects microevolution.