Is evolution a fact or theory?

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,130
334
52
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟157,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The very notion of human evolution is contradictory to human beings. The notion of evolution, as first posited by Darwin, is more along the lines of natural selection, or survival of the fittest. An animal is born with a minor genetic variance that gives it some sort of edge over others of the same species. But these genetic variances are minor changes that give advantages. Nothing more. When these variances are passed down genetically to their offspring, over time the minor change becomes more widespread and ultimately dominates the species because of the advantage it affords. So in the long term, a species may evolve in basic traits. This is an observable fact.

But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven, because the fossil record was not, in his day, sufficient to prove the evolution from one species to another; the "missing link" was not there. There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.

Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today. There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.

Now, as it concerns humans ... the concept of evolution is, again, natural selection. A small trait makes an animal more survivable, and so it flourishes. Giraffes did not grow long necks so they could eat leaves from the tall trees. They eat leaves from the tall trees because they have long necks. People on a sinking island aren't going to develop gills because they need to breath under water. They'll just drown.

So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable. Our changes from the alleged previous forms of our species have not made us more survivable. They have made us more fragile.

We evolved also in mind, some might say. Well, if the first smart human with less hair, a weaker constitution, and weaker muscles was born to a less intelligent, hairy mother who could knock down trees ... but who didn't use fire ... we wouldn't have survived to pass on our more intelligent, less hairy, weaker selves to a new line of offspring. We would have simply died, being ill-equipped to survive, lacking the necessary traits common to our alleged ancestors.

Then there are things like the human eye (or any eye in general), which is not a small change, but a complex one. No blind species, by accident or genetic mutation, would ever produce an offspring with complex sight.

All in all, the concept of evolution is pure speculation, and it's not based on any real findings of science. Darwin had an idea. The idea in its simplest form is tangible. But the idea on the scope and level that evolutionists propose is preposterous. It's not real. Evolution is a farce.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But as Darwin also noted, his theory was not proven
Where exactly did he note that?
Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite.
This will come as a profound shock to the world's biologists, who think otherwise.

There were no fish-dogs, hippo-birds, or snake-gazelles.
None of those things should ever have existed if Darwin was correct. You really should learn something about evolutionary biology before attacking it.
The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life
Sort of close. It shows the first appearance of most animal phyla, over a period of tens of millions of years.
in almost the same forms as they exist today.
Completely wrong. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata. The earliest chordates looked something like this:
Amphioxus.png

(source: Functional Genomics Thickens the Biological Plot)

Do think humans have almost the same form as that?

And we still don't have a missing link.
There are in fact numerous examples of transitional fossils.
So when one considers the fact that human beings will die from exposure in virtually any climate on earth without artificial aid, the idea that we evolved to a lesser version of a survivable species contradicts the very foundation of natural selection. We have become less survivable.
Since we do in fact survive in every climate on the planet, your claim is clearly wrong.
No blind species, by accident or genetic mutation, would ever produce an offspring with complex sight.
Quite true. But a blind species is quite capable of producing offspring with extremely rudimentary sight, and a species with extremely rudimentary sight is capable of producing a species with slightly less rudimentary sight, and so on.
All in all, the concept of evolution is pure speculation, and it's not based on any real findings of science.
Might I ask what your qualifications are, that you are telling thousands upon thousands of scientists that they have no idea how to do their own jobs? Biologists are under the impression that evolution is the foundational theory for biology, and that it is supported by and explains a vast range of data. You think they're completely wrong. Who do you think knows more about biology, you or the biologists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
mutation is a fact. Evolution is either a theory or an hypothesis, depending on what you are claiming "evolved".
Mutation is a fact. Common descent is a fact. Evolution is the theoretical explanation for the fact of common descent.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,232
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,063.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Modern discoveries have actually proven the exact opposite. The Cambrian layer shows the almost spontaneous existence of most known phyla of life, in almost the same forms as they exist today. There have been no findings of substance beyond the Cambrian layer. And we still don't have a missing link.
.

People just repeat the same garbage around here. You know, the cambrian explosion occurred over tens of millions of years (40-50), and the hard shelled fossils of the cambrian explosion were further predated by trace fossils and microscopic shelled phyla (bivalves, mollusks, corals etc.) dating back some 100 million years even prior to the cambrian explosion.

Darwin lived over 200 years ago. So he might not be the best person to refer to on this topic, unfortunately.

"spontaneous existence" of the cambrian layer indeed. Also, the cambrian isnt just one layer, so i wouldnt refer to it as "the cambrian layer". Cambrian layers span hundreds of feet thick and encompass many many layers that span some 55 million years.

Someone has clearly been feeding you some nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Which specific instance of common descent are you saying is a fact?
I'd say they all are. But let's stick with the only one most people actually care about: humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That's a fact about the history of life on this planet.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'll do that in a second post.



We actually have a large number of known fusions from nature. Domesticated horses, for example, have one fusion, being otherwise closely related to Prezwalski's horse.

There are also a lot of lab observations:
Survival of Chromosomal Changes
permission denied. Is that your personal website?
The whole-genome duplication (WGD) that occurred during yeast evolution changed the basal number of chromosomes from 8 to 16. However, the number of chromosomes in post-WGD species now ranges between 10 and 16, and the number in non-WGD species (Zygosaccharomyces, Kluyveromyces, Lachancea, and Ashbya) ranges between 6 and 8. To study the mechanism by which chromosome number changes, we traced the ancestry of centromeres and telomeres in each species. We observe only two mechanisms by which the number of chromosomes has decreased, as indicated by the loss of a centromere. The most frequent mechanism, seen 8 times, is telomere-to-telomere fusion between two chromosomes with the concomitant death of one centromere. The other mechanism, seen once, involves the breakage of a chromosome at its centromere, followed by the fusion of the two arms to the telomeres of two other chromosomes. The only mechanism by which chromosome number has increased in these species is WGD. Translocations and inversions have cycled telomere locations, internalizing some previously telomeric genes and creating novel telomeric locations. Comparison of centromere structures shows that the length of the CDEII region is variable between species but uniform within species. We trace the complete rearrangement history of the Lachancea kluyveri genome since its common ancestor with Saccharomyces and propose that its exceptionally low level of rearrangement is a consequence of the loss of the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) DNA repair pathway in this species.
Mechanisms of Chromosome Number Evolution in Yeast

Read the abstract again, it is not observing actual events, it is observing existing items and ASSUMING what might happened in the past.

The fusion was first hypothesized, when it became clear that humans had one less chromosome pair than other apes. Then it was noted that one human chromosome looked very, very much like two ape chromosomes.

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[7] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[8][9]


The evidence for this includes:


  • The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[10][11]
  • The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.[12]
  • The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.[13]
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [13]
Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia



If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover every problem with your belief, than any belief is equally likely to be true.



Since we observe numerous chromosome fusions in nature, that cannot be true.

Do you believe that for serious science theories, we should be able to repeatably test and verify such theory? Is anything you said above can be tested, verified in a lab? Not just assuming something must be true because they look similar, but test such DNA changes in a lab?
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'd say they all are. But let's stick with the only one most people actually care about: humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. That's a fact about the history of life on this planet.
That is a rather brave jump. It is quite amazing that most people just go against the established scientific method of to be able to repeatably test and verify a fact, to the degree that if it looks like a fact, it must be a fact. Just a couple of hundred year ago it was the fact of the scientific community that the earth is flat....
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that for serious science theories, we should be able to repeatably test and verify such theory?
Yes.
Is anything you said above can be tested, verified in a lab?
The tests -- carried out in a lab -- were described in what you quoted above. Identifying the residual centromere in human chromosome 2 is one such test. (Note: scientific theories have to be testable. That does not mean you have to recreate the subject of the theory in the lab. We can test theories about the sun without creating a sun in the lab.)
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is a rather brave jump.
It's nothing of the sort. Common descent has been treated as a fact by biologists for over a century.
It is quite amazing that most people just go against the established scientific method of to be able to repeatably test and verify a fact, to the degree that if it looks like a fact, it must be a fact.
It is quite amazing (really -- it continues to surprise me) how many people think they're in a position to tell scientists how they should be doing their job. Are you a scientist?
Just a couple of hundred year ago it was the fact of the scientific community that the earth is flat....
I suggest you read up on your history. The scientific community has known that the earth is a sphere since the time of the ancient Greeks. They even knew roughly how big it was.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes.

The tests -- carried out in a lab -- were described in what you quoted above. Identifying the residual centromere in human chromosome 2 is one such test.
Can you quote in the post how the chromosome fused? What chemical/physical reaction is required to make such thing happen? Did we actually OBSERVE it happen or just assumed it happened, without even knowing what condition, time this might even happened?
(Note: scientific theories have to be testable. That does not mean you have to recreate the subject of the theory in the lab. We can test theories about the sun without creating a sun in the lab.)
That is why how sun is formed is only a hypotheses. We know some of the properties of the sun (i.e. how hot it might be, what reaction it might use) via repeatable, verifiable tests. All others are just hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is why how sun is formed is only a hypotheses. We know some of the properties of the sun (i.e. how hot it might be, what reaction it might use) via repeatable, verifiable tests. All others are just hypothesis.
I didn't mean just hypotheses about the sun's formation, but about the sun itself. That the sun is fueled by fusion is a fact, one that we determined without creating a sun in the lab.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's nothing of the sort. Common descent has been treated as a fact by biologists for over a century.

There are a huge difference between facts and hypothesis.

It is quite amazing (really -- it continues to surprise me) how many people think they're in a position to tell scientists how they should be doing their job. Are you a scientist?

You don't need to be a scientist to demand facts, verifiable, testable and repeatable facts. What's wrong with that? If you heard some scientists roll out a theory but can't provide facts, it does not matter who he is. Scientists get things wrong all the time.

I suggest you read up on your history. The scientific community has known that the earth is a sphere since the time of the ancient Greeks. They even knew roughly how big it was.
Yes some, even some early Christians hold the idea the earth is round. However the over whleming majority think the earth is flat. It is rather obvious.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I didn't mean just hypotheses about the sun's formation, but about the sun itself. That the sun is fueled by fusion is a fact, one that we determined without creating a sun in the lab.
We know this because we are able to observe our thermonuclear bombs, by compare the properties we assume they are the same. We can't create sun but we can repeatably, verifiable test a thermonuclear bomb.

Now can you say the same about we evolved from apes?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are a huge difference between facts and hypothesis.
Yes, I know. And biologists have been treating common descent as a fact, not as a hypothesis, for a very long time.
You don't need to be a scientist to demand facts, verifiable, testable and repeatable facts. What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with you, a nonscientist, telling scientists what counts as a scientific test and as repeatable scientific evidence.
Yes some, even some early Christians hold the idea the earth is round. However the over whleming majority think the earth is flat. It is rather obvious.
You said that a couple of hundred years ago it was a fact of the scientific community that the earth was flat. That statement was wrong.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We know this because we are able to observe our thermonuclear bombs, by compare the properties we assume they are the same. We can't create sun but we can repeatably, verifiable test a thermonuclear bomb.

Now can you say the same about we evolved from apes?
Yes. We can look at mutations that occur now, in living organisms. We can count how often they occur, and what the different kinds are. Then we can compare the properties of those genetic changes with the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. They turn out to have just about identical properties.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Can you quote in the post how the chromosome fused? What chemical/physical reaction is required to make such thing happen? Did we actually OBSERVE it happen or just assumed it happened, without even knowing what condition, time this might even happened?
I noted one of the tests we can do to determine whether a fusion has occurred. Do you agree that this is a test or not? As for how it happens, we can see chromosome fusions happen all the time in today's organisms.
 
Upvote 0

Waggles

Acts 2:38
Supporter
Feb 7, 2017
768
476
69
South Oz
Visit site
✟112,244.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Widowed
Is there are proof of either?
No there is no proof only speculation and false science at best.
People who can't handle the truth of creation subscribe to proving
evolution as an alternative to the truth of Jesus, who is God and created all things.

They are blind and to the revelation of God in scripture and in "nature" and
the cosmos.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 4x4toy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Just a couple of hundred year ago it was the fact of the scientific community that the earth is flat....

No. That is completely wrong. As you were told, the Greeks were quite aware that the Earth was a sphere, and one of them accurately measured how bit it is. There are Roman coins showing the Earth as a sphere.

By the time of the Roman Republic, every educated person knew the Earth was spherical.
 
Upvote 0