The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[pitabread]

Then there is what is called the theory of evolution, aka Darwinism, that is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

No, the Theory of Evolution does not include the Big Bang. Good grief, you've been discussing this stuff for how long now and you're not getting the basic definition right?

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know of many scientists that believe in a conclusion to be true without any scientific evidence to back it up.

You're right, they don't. Creationists seem to have that problem, though.

The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact.

Regarded by who? Who is so foolish as to believe that the different components of the the theory all rest on the same epistemological bases?

People believe in it, but it's not science; it's more like a philosophy (and that's being generous).

People find the common descent hypotheses pretty convincing. So what? It is pretty convincing.

You know, Abraxos, science is rather like putting together a jigsaw puzzle for which the top of its box has been lost. You can begin to get a good idea of what the picture is long before the last piece has been put into place. And even before that you will be able to say quite a bit about what the picture is not. So much for biblical special creation.

 

[xianghua]

Not necessarily. Humans can program computers to simulate natural selection with genetic algorithms, so why couldn't God have programmed the universe to do something similar?

because we have not evidence that creatures evolved into other creatures. check this for instance:
best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

 

[JackRT]

From CA202: Evolution proof

Claim CA202:
Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.
Response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
   
   Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Links:
Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
References:

1. Benner, S. A., M. D. Caraco, J. M. Thomson and E. A. Gaucher. 2002. Planetary biology--paleontological, geological, and molecular histories of life. Science 296: 864-868.
2. Mercer, John M. and V. Louise Roth. 2003. The effects of Cenozoic global change on squirrel phylogeny. Science 299: 1568-1572.
3. Theobald, D. 2004. (see above)

 

[Jimmy D]

because we have not evidence that creatures evolved into other creatures. check this for instance:
best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

All you are demonstrating with that link is your unwillingness to listen to what people are telling you.

 

[Armoured]

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

I was talking about the theory of evolution as opposed to the natural phenomenon of evolution. Notice it was in two parts, one is actual science the other was a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. But you knew that.

This is incorrect.

 

[Armoured]

From CA202: Evolution proof

Claim CA202:
Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.
Response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
   
   Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

Links:
Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
References:

1. Benner, S. A., M. D. Caraco, J. M. Thomson and E. A. Gaucher. 2002. Planetary biology--paleontological, geological, and molecular histories of life. Science 296: 864-868.
2. Mercer, John M. and V. Louise Roth. 2003. The effects of Cenozoic global change on squirrel phylogeny. Science 299: 1568-1572.
3. Theobald, D. 2004. (see above)

[/thread]

 

[sfs]

Basically he's saying there is no tree of life.

He's right -- there is no tree of life, strictly defined.

Common descent however is still vaguely up in the air with many evolutionists. They have to be.

Common descent is a fact. It's one of the best-supported and most tested ideas that science has come up with.

If you seriously think that any significant number of biologists doubt common descent, you simply have no exposure to actual biologists.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Oh wow! It's a single bush depicting more branches happening earlier rather than later yet still emerging from a single source! Checkmate, Darwinists.

 

[sfs]

Oh wow! It's a single bush depicting more branches happening earlier rather than later yet still emerging from a single source! Checkmate, Darwinists.

It also should have connections between the branches, especially for bacteria. That's what falsifies the idea of a "tree" of life: lots of genetic exchange between species.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Natural selection is the opposite of chance.

Yep, opposite of any chance there is anything to it.

 

[pitabread]

Yep, opposite of any chance there is anything to it.

Would it surprise you to learn that there is applied science derived from natural selection?

 

[USincognito]

I was talking about the theory of evolution as opposed to the natural phenomenon of evolution. Notice it was in two parts, one is actual science the other was a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. But you knew that.

No, we don't know that. Primarily because it's a vacuous chunk of rhetoric you've glommed onto and repeat like a mantra expecting others to then agree with you.

 

[Strathos]

because we have not evidence that creatures evolved into other creatures. check this for instance:
best argument against evolution? (the self replicating robot)

That depends how you define the differences between "creatures".

 

[dad]

Common descent is a fact. It's one of the best-supported and most tested ideas that science has come up with..

Baloney

 

[Abraxos]

Regarded by who? Who is so foolish as to believe that the different components of the the theory all rest on the same epistemological bases?

The theory of evolution has been preached as a scientific fact by evolutionists for decades. From National Geographic to the Smithsonian, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and many other big names in the scientific community that have great influence. In schools, higher education institutions it is taught as a scientific fact, and in museums it's treated as a scientific fact. Even taxpayers money is used for textbooks to teach it as scientific fact. Popular culture also play a part in treating it as a proven fact.

Regardless of the consequences of treating a hypothesis (especially of that caliber) as a scientific fact, false information is being presented to the masses, and it's really difficult for real science to be heard or to gain a platform.

People find the common descent hypotheses pretty convincing. So what? It is pretty convincing.

Sure, we can see it as "pretty convincing", but without any actual scientific method to experiment or test the hypothesis but just have faith in it being true, that's just not good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually antiscience.

 

[Allandavid]

If you re-watch the video (1.05) he candidly says "there is no tree of life." Evolutionists do have to re-evaluate their common descent hypothesis, some suggest a "bush of life".

lol

And we once used to assume that the sun orbited the earth. We improved our understanding. That seems to be what science does..

What's your problem...?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory of evolution has been preached as a scientific fact by evolutionists for decades. From National Geographic to the Smithsonian, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and many other big names in the scientific community that have great influence. In schools, higher education institutions it is taught as a scientific fact, and in museums it's treated as a scientific fact. Even taxpayers money is used for textbooks to teach it as scientific fact. Popular culture also play a part in treating it as a proven fact.

Regardless of the consequences of treating a hypothesis (especially of that caliber) as a scientific fact, false information is being presented to the masses, and it's really difficult for real science to be heard or to gain a platform.


Sure, we can see it as "pretty convincing", but without any actual scientific method to experiment or test the hypothesis but just have faith in it being true, that's just not good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually antiscience.

1. Evolution IS a fact: creatures reproduce with inheritable modification and the most successfull get to live to see another day. This basic concept leads to speciation events (which are observable and testable in bothe the wild as the lab)

2. Evolution is extremely testable. it makes loads of empirical predictions, all of which can be checked.

 

[Allandavid]

The theory of evolution has been preached as a scientific fact by evolutionists for decades. From National Geographic to the Smithsonian, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and many other big names in the scientific community that have great influence. In schools, higher education institutions it is taught as a scientific fact, and in museums it's treated as a scientific fact. Even taxpayers money is used for textbooks to teach it as scientific fact. Popular culture also play a part in treating it as a proven fact.

Regardless of the consequences of treating a hypothesis (especially of that caliber) as a scientific fact, false information is being presented to the masses, and it's really difficult for real science to be heard or to gain a platform.


Sure, we can see it as "pretty convincing", but without any actual scientific method to experiment or test the hypothesis but just have faith in it being true, that's just not good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually antiscience.

Please quote the texts/scientists/organisations that claim that evolution is 'fact'...