Is evolution a fact or theory?

[mathinspiration]

Is there are proof of either?

 

[sfs]

Is there are proof of either?

Proof of either what?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that existing life forms have evolved from ancestral life forms and share common ancestry. There is also a large body of theory that explains how and why evolution has occurred.

 

[Favourofone]

In science accepted theory is as good as it gets. Since evolution is one of the most tested theories that has stood despite counter arguments it is essentially what laymen can call a fact.

 

[majj27]

These two terms are not exclusionary to one another. IOW, the answer is "yes".

 

[Sanoy]

It's fact in this sense. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." The problem is that the first premise is merely assumed rather than eliminated. (regarding standard evolution, not theistic evolution)

 

[Ancient of Days]

Evolution has nothing to do with the facts and as far as theory's go, its one of the all time worst. Its more like a fairy tale, wishful thinking. In fact its more of a religion than anything else.

 

[jhwatts]

It is both. Certain aspects of it are fact while other are unproven theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is fact and theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it. BTW, no theory is "proven."

Science is essentially inductive, and does not give you logical certainty.

It merely accumulates sufficient evidence to make it unreasonable to deny the theory.

Theories, before they are validated by evidence, are hypotheses.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is there are proof of either?

There is a common misconception that a "theory" simply means "guess", but that's now how science works. A theory is something which provides explanatory power to observable phenomenon.

Germ theory explains the observation that disease is caused by microscopic organisms, or "germs"; it is the theory that explains how certain diseases are caused by certain infectious agents. It is a theory about observable fact.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory about the observable fact of evolution.

Science does not deal with "proofs", but with evidence and data. "Proof" is a matter of mathematics, not science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NobleMouse]

Is there are proof of either?

The underlying and broader assertion of evolution is that humans evolved from a single-celled microbe. This has never been observed, is not seen in the fossil record, and has never been reproduced (either in nature or in a lab). The term 'evolution' also gets used to describe variability within a fixed species (ex. Finches in the Galapagos). I call this "adaptation" personally; however, this is observed and does happen and fits within the understanding that God created each according to their kind. When viewing evolution in the broader terms of explaining how all life (including plants) came from a single universal ancestor, this is theory.... unless you consider inferences with no evidence to corroborate to be as factual as 1 + 1 = 2, evolution remains a theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

The underlying and broader assertion of evolution is that humans evolved from a single-celled microbe.

No. Humans evolved from other primates.

This has never been observed, is not seen in the fossil record

The fossil record abundantly demonstrates the evolution of humans from other primates. Would you like to learn about some of it?

and has never been reproduced (either in nature or in a lab). The term 'evolution' also gets used to describe variability within a fixed species (ex. Finches in the Galapagos).

Just so we know you know, what do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

I call this "adaptation" personally;

That's an error. "Adaptation" refers to evolution that increases fitness. Not all evolution does that. A good deal of it is neutral with respect to fitness.

When viewing evolution in the broader terms of explaining how all life (including plants) came from a single universal ancestor, this is theory

In science, a theory is an idea or set of ideas that has been repeatedly validated by evidence. So yes. The realization of common descent actually occurred before Darwin, when Linnaeus showed that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Such nested hierarchies only happen in cases of common descent. Later, genetics showed why this happens. The same family tree can be constructed using DNA. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

 

[NobleMouse]

No. Humans evolved from other primates.

What are you saying "no" to? Point blank (to ANYONE in this forum that has accepted the false claims of evolution over what God explicitly states to the contrary in Genesis), does evolution make the broad assertion that there is a universal common ancestor for all life? Yes, or no? If not sure what secular science asserts on this, here are some references for reading:
Darwin was Right | All species share a common descent
Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth | Smart News | Smithsonian
Universal ancestor of all life on Earth was only half alive

The fossil record abundantly demonstrates the evolution of humans from other primates. Would you like to learn about some of it?

Speculation... and I never brought up primates, I believe I was making statements on the "broad" assertions of evolution ("broad" is the word I used). Since you brought it up, please see research by Dr. Todd Wood. There is also a 47-minute discussion at the following URL where he shows there is a clear gap in characteristics between humans and alleged ape-like ancestors we supposedly evolved from:
https://isgenesishistory.com/ape-men-adam/

Just so we know you know, what do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

Not my thoughts; here is the definition given when Googling "define biological evolution":
"Biological evolution is the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection. It is most commonly defined as "changes in gene frequencies in populations."
Since the term "biological" was not specified in the title of the thread here, I qualified my statements by stating what I would discuss what evolution "broadly" asserts, as well as where the term is also used in describing a type of variability in life that results from adaptation.

That's an error. "Adaptation" refers to evolution that increases fitness. Not all evolution does that. A good deal of it is neutral with respect to fitness.

What's an error? You just wrote adaptation refers to evolution that increases fitness and not all evolution does that (inferring that some evolution does increase fitness). If some (even any) 'evolution' does increase fitness, and I said this (what I called adaptation) is also called evolution (which you affirmed in your response), then this is true... and not an error.

In science, a theory is an idea or set of ideas that has been repeatedly validated by evidence. So yes. The realization of common descent actually occurred before Darwin, when Linnaeus showed that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Such nested hierarchies only happen in cases of common descent. Later, genetics showed why this happens. The same family tree can be constructed using DNA. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

Presuppositional bias in interpretation of data. God created DNA - no doubt, and DNA supports life as a type of building block - no doubt. Now, interpreting this to mean that all life is related to a universal common ancestor is a presuppositional bias in interpretation of data. My bias is that God created all life, each according to their kind. All life has a common creator, for living in a common environment (earth), therefore it makes sense for commonality in DNA across all life forms.

 

[The Barbarian]

What are you saying "no" to?

You're wrong about evolutionary theory. It doesn't say we evolved from bacteria. It says were evolved from other primates.

Point blank (to ANYONE in this forum that has accepted the false claims of evolution over what God explicitly states to the contrary in Genesis)

As you know, evolution is entirely consistent with God's word in Genesis, but the "life ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism are explicitly denied by God's word.

does evolution make the broad assertion that there is a universal common ancestor for all life?

Yes. It just doesn't say that humans evolved from bacteria. They evolved from other primates.

Speculation... and I never brought up primates, I believe I was making statements on the "broad" assertions of evolution ("broad" is the word I used). Since you brought it up, please see research by Dr. Todd Wood. There is also a 47-minute discussion at the following URL where he shows there is a clear gap in characteristics between humans and alleged ape-like ancestors we supposedly evolved from

Unfortunately, the link didn't include any of that. What step between other apes and humans does your guy think is missing?

As you know, there are many, many transitional forms between other apes and humans.

Not my thoughts; here is the definition given when Googling "define biological evolution":
"Biological evolution is the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection. It is most commonly defined as "changes in gene frequencies in populations."

Close. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Alleles are different versions of the same gene. It's not common to see genes come and go; more often alleles change

Since the term "biological" was not specified in the title of the thread here, I qualified my statements by stating what I would discuss what evolution "broadly" asserts, as well as where the term is also used in describing a type of variability in life that results from adaptation.

Broadly, "evolution" means "change." So almost anything in nature would be evolution by that definition. Lets use it as biology uses it.

What's an error?

Adaptation is evolution, but merely a certain kind of evolution.

Presuppositional bias in interpretation of data. God created DNA - no doubt, and DNA supports life as a type of building block - no doubt. Now, interpreting this to mean that all life is related to a universal common ancestor is a presuppositional bias in interpretation of data.

We can check that by looking at populations of known descent. Turns out, DNA indicates common descent.

My bias is that God created all life, each according to their kind.

Me too. The difference is, I'm not bothered by the way He did it.

All life has a common creator, for living in a common environment (earth), therefore it makes sense for commonality in DNA across all life forms.

The evidence says otherwise. For example, vultures are all very similar. And yet, new world vultures and old world vultures are rather different in DNA. If you were right, they'd be very similar in DNA. It turns out that old world vultures are evolved from birds of prey, while the evidence indicates that new world vultures are most closely related to storks.

 

[GBTG]

Scientific evidence states the following! Unless you actually understand genetics you should not be espousing ideas for which you have a topical understanding.

Hybridization and speciation

"At the molecular level, we still know relatively little about how these mechanisms work outside of model organisms. Gaining insights into the nature of the multiple genetic elements involved in speciation and hybridization, and including more precise analysis of molecular aspects of phenotypic evolution, is an important task that will substantially increase our ability to identify what is occurring when divergent genomes interact. This is becoming more tractable in nonmodel organisms, with the rapid advances in next-generation sequencing technologies (e.g. Wolf et al., 2010b). Finally, although we are beginning to appreciate the impact of genome changes on phenotypic variation, linking this to fitness remains a critical challenge (Barrett & Hoekstra, 2011). The hypothesis that particular genetic mechanisms influence the outcome of hybridization via their effect on phenotypes has been tested rigorously in very few systems (e.g. Edelist et al., 2009; Tirosh et al., 2009; Groszmann et al., 2011; Arnold et al., 2012). Experimental approaches would be particularly valuable in integrating laboratory results with natural hybridization events." -January of 2013

Models of Speciation

This is what is being taught at Brown University currently!

"Speciation is a fundamental issue in evolutionary biology, but it is both fascinating and frustrating: we know it does happen but it its an historical phenomenon so it is difficult to observe. The two camps of evolutionary biologists best equipped to deal with speciation (in terms of mechanism, population geneticists; in terms of time-frames, paleontologists) are both incapable of "seeing" speciation except in very special situations. We must rely on strong inference to properly understand speciation. This inference is in many cases very rigorous and scientific although it is historical, i.e., requires an interpretation of what has gone on in the past."

Not nearly as factual as those might want it to be or believe! Most of the current genetic papers on the topic are referencing submitted "hypothesis" for review.

Unless you are a geneticists you are not qualified to discuss this matter. You may have an opinion but, that does not make you an authority. Please search "intrinsic barriers to genetic speciation" and you can spend the next few weeks learning about how little is actually known.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

You're wrong about evolutionary theory. It doesn't say we evolved from bacteria. It says were evolved from other primates.

Take up your issue with Smithsonian, Scientific American, Richard Dawkins, et al. I'm just reporting what they are saying...

As you know, evolution is entirely consistent with God's word in Genesis, but the "life ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism are explicitly denied by God's word.

Please provide scriptural references where this is "explicitly" denied as you claim. Re-read Genesis 2:7 to see what the Bible explicitly says. From the ESV:

"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

Explicitly stated, God formed the man of dust from the ground (not the beasts of the field). Dust of the ground <> beasts of the field. Even if it is your life's goal to critique YEC organizations like AiG, ICR, et al, and those who adhere to this model, AiG's animated video of man being created actually illustrates Adam being created from... the dust of the ground. So, I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that YEC's believe man just appeared like some kind of rabbit-out-of-the-hat magic trick. Can you please start providing sources; otherwise, your statements just come across as argumentative conjecture. Likewise, I prefer not to just go around making dogmatic statements and so you'll see me reference scripture and include online references (often multiple sources to show confirmation that this is not an isolated idea) to things I believe are true.

Also, I'd recommend staying away from what the Bible explicitly states in critique of YEC viewpoints and in support of OEC viewpoints because the Bible also explicitly states 'days' with 'evening and morning' in the 6 days of creation (you and I have discussed this before in other threads), and we both know this is largely not accepted as 6 days (144 hours) by OEC adherents. The Bible also explicitly gives the genealogy from Adam to Christ, again often disputed as being erroneous/incomplete/irrelevant by OEC adherents.

Yes. It just doesn't say that humans evolved from bacteria. They evolved from other primates.

Thank you for confirming. It is my understanding as well that evolutionary theory asserts our most recent evolutionary step was from an ape-like creature as a common ancestor with modern apes. Where'd the supposed common ancestor for man/apes come from? Answer: Some earlier, simpler form. And that form? Something simpler still. Somewhere along the way here you're going to have to admit that science asserts that from first initial life (what I'm loosely calling 'bacteria', but also called LUCA) that it is by many evolutionary steps over billions of years that have led from LUCA to man. Or... you can say life was as complex as today, from the very beginning with only very subtle changes occurring between then and now (that the only evolution to arrive at you and me was from the ape-like creature which existed at the very beginning)... which certainly wouldn't require the billions of years evolution claims occurred to arrive at life as it is today. The Bible doesn't say that though does it, it says man was created in the beginning, Adam, day 6 (see Genesis 1:26-31).

Unfortunately, the link didn't include any of that. What step between other apes and humans does your guy think is missing?

As you know, there are many, many transitional forms between other apes and humans.

Did you not watch the video? Dr. Wood addresses the various supposed transitional forms and he utilizes over 400 physical characteristics examined between human skulls and those of the various "pithecus" skulls. There are clear gaps never bridged between those that fall under human and those that fall under non-human - no skull falls into the gap to serve as a transitional form where it has characteristics of both human and non-human. Dr. Wood also has a blog and e-mail if you'd like to argue with him further...
original link: Exploring Ape-Man & Adam - Lecture by Dr. Todd Wood, Biologist
Blog / email link: Todd's Blog

Close. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Alleles are different versions of the same gene. It's not common to see genes come and go; more often alleles change

Genetic mutations are most commonly adverse or at best neutral (neutral if suppressed by dominant normal healthy genes) in their impact to living organisms/creatures. This points back to the creation/corruption model that YEC adherents accept. God created healthy cells/genes (and God said it was good) then as a result of sin, corruption entered and we see mutations, deformations, disease, and death. A presuppositional bias towards accepting evolution as true would look at something like random mutations and suggest that these accumulate, in a positive way (contrary to what is commonly observed otherwise), while working against and cancelling out all of the bad mutations (which also are accumulating as part of the curse of sin), produce something meaningful and functional in the DNA sequence, have other DNA read (and understand) this new code and know what to do with it, 'decide' to keep it, and finally, pass it along to subsequent generations.

Broadly, "evolution" means "change." So almost anything in nature would be evolution by that definition. Lets use it as biology uses it.

Agreed, I would add that implied by evolution is also that this "change" is generally beneficial and increasing in complexity. Again, no way to get from bacteria to man without beneficial and increasingly complex DNA.

Adaptation is evolution, but merely a certain kind of evolution.

Thank you for confirming adaptation is included under the umbrella of evolution.

We can check that by looking at populations of known descent. Turns out, DNA indicates common descent.

Again, I see this assertion as simply evidence of your presuppositional bias. "DNA indicates common descent". My bias sees DNA as a building block God used in creating all life, not that He created a a life form template (the alleged LUCA) and brought forth all life from that template through slow, gradual, random mutations many times over across billions of years.

Me too. The difference is, I'm not bothered by the way He did it.

Perhaps you and Job can educate us all how God laid down the foundations of the earth and brought forth life then. Turns out that while this view doesn't bother you and others here who adhere to the OEC view, it does bother many others besides YEC adherents:
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind
10 facts about atheists

One of the major reasons cited why many today are leaving religion behind and the rise of atheism is pointing back to science. Why? Well, secular science asserts ideas that go against what the Bible teaches. But you say to the contrary, that science affirms the Bible. Well, apparently a growing number of people would disagree. This has already swept through Europe and we can see the state of what has happened to their churches that once thrived centuries ago... don't worry, it's coming here to the US as well and unlike evolution, it won't require billions of years before the Church here looks the same.

The evidence says otherwise. For example, vultures are all very similar. And yet, new world vultures and old world vultures are rather different in DNA. If you were right, they'd be very similar in DNA. It turns out that old world vultures are evolved from birds of prey, while the evidence indicates that new world vultures are most closely related to storks.

Evidence says nothing. I can't count how often this line is used. Like seeing a car with a flat tire off the side of the road and assuming it must only have run over a sharp object, when in reality it's just been very cold out and the tire has a slow leak because the rubber is cracked. How you and I interpret evidence is in support of our respective presuppositional world views. 'Similar'... 'dissimilar'... are also just subjective terms. A straightforward reading of the Bible paints no such picture of billions of years or evolution from bacteria. To believe it supports these ideas requires first believing billions of years and evolution are absolutely true (not based upon evidence, but how you interpret the evidence), then reinterpreting what scripture means (contrary to what it says) to have the two line up. It is everyone's prerogative to do with scripture as they please. If you want to accept evolution and billions of years on the basis of what has been taught by man and make a life-long commitment to perform mental gymnastics of what God says when reading and interpreting the Bible then, please continue.

Separately, YEC's have no issue with life adapting to environments and developing similar characteristics suitable for that environment as is found with other species (I believe this idea is called 'convergent evolution' in secular science). AiG makes reference to old/new world vultures on their website:
An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds

You paint a very black-and-white picture of what YEC's accept/don't accept, yet it is in accordance with a plain understanding of God's word. I believe our world view and what we accept to be true has as much to do with how we philosophically view ourselves as anything else that contributes to our world view. I believe you and I were created in God's image and that God made man in His image in the beginning, as the Bible says. While I believe we are created beings, created creatures in fact, we are special and separate from all of His creation, as the Bible says. What science says is that man did not exist in the beginning (it was LUCA that existed in the beginning), we are not special, in fact we are just an evolved animal that looks and responds the way it does out of instinct and a rooted primeval drive to be the fittest. Is it no wonder then that we see people act and do some of the unconscionable things we hear about on the evening news, when after all they have been taught as children up through young adulthood, by science. If only they instead knew the plain, simple truth of the Bible and would believe...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about evolutionary theory. It doesn't say we evolved from bacteria. It says were evolved from other primates.

Take up your issue with Smithsonian

Smithsonian says humans evolved from Austrolopithecines. They weren't bacteria; they were human-like primates.
Australopithecus anamensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Scientific American

Well, let's see...
These fossils and many others are landmark discoveries in paleoanthropology, finds that have filled crucial gaps in scientists’ understanding of human origins. They are all vitally important. And yet the A. sediba fossils manage to stand out from even this elite crowd, because of the sheer volume and quality of information they contain. The finds from Malapa tick pretty much all the boxes on a paleoanthropologist’s wish list. Specimens that preserve multiple skeletal elements? Check. Remains of multiple, coeval individuals (important for understanding variation within a species)? Check. Fossils in near-pristine condition, thus eliminating uncertainties about how pieces fit together? Geological context that allows for precision dating of the fossils? Associated plant and animals remains? Check, check, check.
Is Australopithecus sediba the Most Important Human Ancestor Discovery Ever?

Nope. Not them, either.

Richard Dawkins

Nope:
Researchers studying fossils uncovered in the outskirts of Nairobi reveal that they belonged to the same species as Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. This is the first time a fossil from this extinct genus was discovered east of the Rift Valley, suggesting that the range of our Australopithecus ancestors was much bigger than we thought.
New Kenyan Fossils Expand The Range Of Australopithecus | Richard Dawkins Foundation

I'm just reporting what they are saying...

Apparently not.

Babarian observes:
but the "life ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism are explicitly denied by God's word.

Please provide scriptural references where this is "explicitly" denied as you claim.

The Bible says life was created from existing natural things, not ex nihilo:

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Not from nothing, from the earth, air and water, which brought forth living things as He intended.

Common ancestor is still consistent, but the YE doctrine of life ex nihilo is specifically ruled out in Genesis.

Did you not watch the video? Dr. Wood addresses the various supposed transitional forms and he utilizes over 400 physical characteristics examined between human skulls and those of the various "pithecus" skulls.

I know he denies the many, many transitional characteristics in hominin skulls, but he never bothered to present any evidence. If I missed it, pick something and we'll see if it stands up to inspection.

Meantime...

Which of these hominin skulls is human and on what basis did you decide?

There are clear gaps never bridged between those that fall under human and those that fall under non-human

Tell us about those. What do you think they are?

Barbarian, regarding what evolution is:
Close. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Alleles are different versions of the same gene. It's not common to see genes come and go; more often alleles change

Genetic mutations are most commonly adverse or at best neutral

Nope. The great majority of them don't do much of anything at all. You have perhaps 20 mutations that didn't exist in either parent. Unless you're very unlucky, none of them will give you any problems. A few mutations are harmful and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

(neutral if suppressed by dominant normal healthy genes)

No, you're thinking of harmful recessives, which are something entirely different. Neutral mutations, even if homozyogous, don't harm the organism. The reason for this is that a single amino acid substitution in a protein is very unlikely to change the activity of the protein.

The misconception is a common one among creationists, who suppose there is a single "right" gene for each locus in humans. That's absurd. This points back to the creation/corruption model that YEC adherents accept, but a simple fact makes such a model impossible. Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus between the two of them. But most loci have dozens of alleles. The rest, including many that are very useful for survival, evolved.

God created healthy cells/genes (and God said it was good) then as a result of sin, corruption entered and we see mutations, deformations, disease, and death.

That idea is not supported by scripture, which says no such thing. And the evidence from numerous favorable mutations shows it to be false. A presuppositional bias towards accepting creationism would look at something like random mutations and suggest that these must be mostly harmful (contrary to what is commonly observed otherwise)


Agreed, I would add that implied by evolution is also that this "change" is generally beneficial and increasing in complexity. Again, no way to get from bacteria to man without beneficial and increasingly complex DNA.

Again, I see this assertion as simply evidence of your presuppositional bias. "DNA indicates common descent".

We can easily test it by comparing DNA of organisms of known descent. Turns out, DNA testing does indeed show us evidence of common descent.

One of the major reasons cited why many today are leaving religion behind and the rise of atheism is pointing back to science. Why?

Young Earth creationism. When children are raised being told that YE creationism is an essential Christian doctrine, and then they find that it cannot be true, they sometimes lose their faith. This is the real damage creationism does.

Well, secular science asserts ideas that go against what the Bible teaches.

No. It goes against what creationism teaches. Which is quite another thing.

But you say to the contrary, that science affirms the Bible.

The Bible and science are compatible, but science cannot affirm anything supernatural.

Barbarian observes:
The evidence says otherwise. For example, vultures are all very similar. And yet, new world vultures and old world vultures are rather different in DNA. If you were right, they'd be very similar in DNA. It turns out that old world vultures are evolved from birds of prey, while the evidence indicates that new world vultures are most closely related to storks.

Evidence says nothing.

In this case, it says that the creationist notion of DNA being similar in similar organisms is often incorrect. And so we know creationism is false.

How you and I interpret evidence is in support of our respective presuppositional world views.

Sorry, postmodernism isn't going to be convincing. There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it from evidence.

I believe you and I were created in God's image and that God made man in His image in the beginning, as the Bible says.

Do you think God has a nose and thumbs? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to know.

While I believe we are created beings, created creatures in fact, we are special and separate from all of His creation, as the Bible says. What science says is that man did not exist in the beginning (it was LUCA that existed in the beginning), we are not special, in fact we are just an evolved animal that looks and responds the way it does out of instinct and a rooted primeval drive to be the fittest.

Would be. "From dust you are, to dust you will return." Our bodies are created naturally, like any other animal. However, we are not a body. As C.S. Lewis says "you are a soul; you have a body."

Is it no wonder then that we see people act and do some of the unconscionable things we hear about on the evening news, when after all they have been taught as children up through young adulthood, by science.

If that were true, the children of scientists would tend to be worse-behaved than most children. And the opposite is true.

 

[JackRT]

Someone with an open mind sees something happening in the natural world and thinks deeply about it. After long thought she comes up with a "I think it might have happened like this." This is what is called an hypothesis --- it might also be called an "educated guess". This forms the basis for further observation and experiment. After time the hypothesis looks better and better and begins to be regarded as a theory but not quite. A good theory must be falsifiable. So after some further thought about her theory she uses it to make a prediction about something that has never been observed before. This will be the basis of a brand new experiment. If the prediction is falsified, the theory will either have to be modified or rejected outright. This has happened many times in science. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory. This does not mean that it is set in stone because this process of prediction, experiment and confirmation will continue. A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt because in science it is impossible to know absolutely everything about anything. However a theory can be disproven because there always remains the possibility that at some point in time something will be observed that will negate the theory.


Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[GBTG]

How many participants here are geneticists?

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence.

For the theory of Evolution... not so much. As stated previously in post #15. Current biology has very little in the way of genetic understanding of "evolution" as a complete process... Observing something is not the same as being able to prove something. We recognize we are all here and we can observe all the species now and in the fossil record, what has never been "proven" is how all life was manifest. The vast majority of people confuse or assign phenotype as being equatable to genotype. This is inaccurate. There are very significant intrinsic barriers to genetic variability.

Limitations of Gene Duplication Models: Evolution of Modules in Protein Interaction Networks

"The results from our clustering analysis revealed the existence of different structural features on the module level, the NGD model and the DMC model exhibit compared with biological protein interaction networks and, hence, demonstrate limitations of these models [71]. We want to emphasize that we studied not only the parameter settings of the models listed in table 2, but many more. However, none resulted in qualitatively different results. This points to a general limitation of these models in the description of the evolution of modules in protein networks."

Just because it's popular does not mean its accurate! It was once very popular to know the Earth was the center of our Universe. Knowledge is power... don't just "agree", look at the secular scientific evidence on the topic.

I don't want to go back and forth on this issue. I will state as a Scientist that evolution could be true if that is the process God wanted to use. That said we don't have proof, and the theory is shaky at best! As stated most geneticists are currently submitting new hypothesis on the subject.
God could have just as easily put every species here by his will. These species just happened to have a shared DNA structure due to efficiency? This would be "supernatural" but then again all matter is "supernatural". In either case there is no proof currently! Don't use phenotype as a response, a duckbill platypus has reptile venom, duck feet and bill, Chicken spurs, and fur. Genetically though it is specifically a mammal, not a combination of 3 species, or a genetic mystery. Many people will talk about "transnational species" the new terminology for missing link... and I will concede that in some cases they do exist. The problem is not the appearance the problem is the genetics! In all these "transitional species" they still belong to only ONE species genetically just like the duckbill platypus.

For anyone that might want the current scientific overview or synopsis on the topic this is an easy read.

THE LANGUAGE OF SPECIATION

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[The Barbarian]

For the theory of Evolution... not so much. As stated previously in post #15. Current biology has very little in the way of genetic understanding of "evolution" as a complete process... Observing something is not the same as being able to prove something.

It would be pretty unrealistic to deny something people observe. Truth is a stronger thing than provability.

We recognize we are all here and we can observe all the species now and in the fossil record, what has never been "proven" is how all life was manifest.

A scientist would simply point out to you that evolutionary theory is not about the way life came to be. Even Darwn only suggested that God created the first living things.

The vast majority of people confuse or assign phenotype as being equatable to genotype.

I see creationists doing this constantly. They suppose that if two organisms are similar in phenotype, they must be similar genetically. But as in the case of old world and new world vultures, that assumption is quite wrong. It is often true, because closely related organisms usually have very similar phenotypes. But convergence happens, and why such organisms have very different genomes is a dark mystery to creationism.

There are very significant intrinsic barriers to genetic variability.

As Darwin made clear, any adaptation that could not have been achieved by a series of changes that were at least not harmful to the organism was not possible. As you suggest, there are intrinsic limitations in the way genes can change over time. So only evolution that fits those limits is possible. So far, that's been verified.

I don't want to go back and forth on this issue. I will state as a Scientist that evolution could be true if that is the process God wanted to use.

Since it's directly observed, pretty obvious that it is.

That said we don't have proof,

A scientist would tell you that science isn't about proof. Science is inductive, which means it's not open to proofs. Proof requires that you know all rules and can determine the particulars from the rules. Science observes the particulars and infers the rules.

and the theory is shaky at best!

It's held up extremely well, because it makes many, many predictions, which so far have always been verified. For example, Huxley, over a hundred years ago, used the theory to predict that there should have been transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Now, there are many known examples. Flemming, who discovered penicillin, predicted that careless use of the antibiotic would lead to the evolution of resistance, as it did.

There are a huge number of such examples.

God could have just as easily put every species here by his will. These species just happened to have a shared DNA structure due to efficiency?

The mystery for creationism is why bats have DNA more like that of whales than like that of birds. It makes no sense from a standpoint of "efficiency", but it's very clear in terms of evolution.

Don't use phenotype as a response, a duckbill platypus has reptile venom

Apparently, not:

The OvDLPs are related to, though distinct from, those involved in reptilian venom production. This appears to be an example of convergent evolution of venom genes from existing immune system genes (defensins).
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution
Nature. 2008 May 8; 453(7192): 175–183.
doi: 10.1038/nature06936
PMCID: PMC2803040
NIHMSID: NIHMS162936

duck feet

No. They are more similar to those of otters and other mammals.

Notice the more complex mammalian feet in the platypus, with all digits facing forward as is typical in mammals. Notice the greatly simplified feet of the duck, with a reversed hallux as is common with birds and theropod dinosaurs. They both have webbed feed, but then so do many, many mammals.

and bill

No. Here's a duck bill:

Notice narrow, and made of hard, keratinized tissue like horn.

Here's a platypus "bill":

Notice, broad,soft and flexible, loaded with sensory nerves for tactile location of food.

Chicken spurs

No, a chicken's spur is a reversed hallux, (big toe). The platypus has the hallux pointing forward. The spur in the platypus is a separate bone, not a digit at all.

Genetically though it is specifically a mammal, not a combination of 3 species, or a genetic mystery. Many people will talk about "transnational species" the new terminology for missing link... and I will concede that in some cases they do exist.

The platypus is one such example. It retains the reptilian complex shoulder girdle, and it lays reptilian eggs. But you'd expect that from a species whose ancestors were reptiles. (edit: also has a reptilian cloaca)

The problem is not the appearance the problem is the genetics! In all these "transitional species" they still belong to only ONE species genetically just like the duckbill platypus.

"A species is just one species." Yes, that's true. However, there are transitional platypuses in the fossil record.

Obdurodon dicksoni is known only from the skull, which has a jaw quite unlike modern platypuses, and more like that of a primitive mammal without some of the adaptations of modern platypuses.