Is evolution a fact or theory?

[sfs]

And you repeated my statement, either clueless about the English language, or deliberately obtuse about my meaning ...

I am neither clueless about the English language nor deliberately obtuse about your meaning. Have you considered the possibility that your argument was lacking in some way.

Our species, according the evolutionary fiction, is that we went from stronger to weaker, survivable to frail.

No, according to evolutionary biology, our species went from stronger to being both smarter and better at long distance running -- and therefore better at hunting.

And the only explanation for the survivability of our frail versions today is our intelligence, which never would have survived without the technology derived from it, meaning that the intelligence never would have survived long enough to invent the artificial means of survival.

Here seems to be the main problem with your reasoning: you're treating strength, intelligence, and technology as if they were binary attributes. In reality, we developed primitive technology -- basic stone tools -- long before we developed the degree of intelligence we have today, and before we became as (relatively) weak as we are today.

 

[sfs]

But let's get back to our case. If you no longer help chromosome 2 fusion as good evidence for evolution, what is?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else -- I've never thought chromosome 2 was good evidence for evolution. As for evidence, I think I already gave this link once. In any case, that's one of the many pieces of evidence for common descent.

 

[AFrazier]

I am neither clueless about the English language nor deliberately obtuse about your meaning. Have you considered the possibility that your argument was lacking in some way.

No, according to evolutionary biology, our species went from stronger to being both smarter and better at long distance running -- and therefore better at hunting.

Here seems to be the main problem with your reasoning: you're treating strength, intelligence, and technology as if they were binary attributes. In reality, we developed primitive technology -- basic stone tools -- long before we developed the degree of intelligence we have today, and before we became as (relatively) weak as we are today.

Okay. Bye now.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do i get a response? @AFrazier

 

[dcalling]

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else -- I've never thought chromosome 2 was good evidence for evolution. As for evidence, I think I already gave this link once. In any case, that's one of the many pieces of evidence for common descent.

I was not mistake, you are the one who quoted chromosome 2 as one of the evidences, see below.

And yes, I saw that link, that that is speculation (i.e. this looks like what happened), not good evidence (after repeated test, we verified this is what happened).

To make some hypothesis into a theory, there must be actual test, that can be verified and repeated, good example of such are germ theory, or genome targets that test out what determine the eye color of mosquito.

Now compare that to what you think is fact, i.e. humans are evolved from some primates that is also the common ancestor of apes. Not only that is not repeatably tested, none of the tiny genom changes are tested either. consider RISC and CISC cpus, they look alike to the naked eye (the older models will look like each other then their mordern counter parts), but they are of different architecture.

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. (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.)

 

[sfs]

I was not mistake, you are the one who quoted chromosome 2 as one of the evidences, see below.

You are mistaken, since I've never quoted chromosome 2 as a piece of evidence for evolution. You quote me as saying that we have scientifically tested the theory that there was a chromosome fusion that produced our chromosome 2.

And yes, I saw that link, that that is speculation (i.e. this looks like what happened), not good evidence (after repeated test, we verified this is what happened).

You appear to be confused about something quite basic. What I described in that link is this: If common descent is true, then we will see several specific things. When we look at the data, we see exactly those things. The English word for this process is "test"; what I describe is a test of the theory of common descent. It doesn't stop being a test just because you want to call it something else. The overall process of developing the hypothesis ("common descent"), constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways"), and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations") is called "science".

Now, if you think that the test I described isn't evidence for common descent, all you have to do is come up with an alternate explanation for the observed data. So far your response to evidence consists of nothing but saying "Is not". So have at it: what's the other explanation for the data?

 

[Job 33:6]

Now, if you think that the test I described isn't evidence for common descent, all you have to do is come up with an alternate explanation for the observed data. So far your response to evidence consists of nothing but saying "Is not". So have at it: what's the other explanation for the data?

I could unpack this, but I will simply agree with it, and will patiently await a poor response.

 

[AFrazier]

Do i get a response? @AFrazier

No. I didn't comment on this thread to argue with people. I just wanted to give my two cents. All evolutionists are welcome to count themselves wise. But I do not agree with it. Whatever your arguments, I find the whole notion to be nothing more than speculation. It can't be proven. And that's as much as I really care to say on the matter at this point.

 

[Job 33:6]

@AFrazier
In fairness, you did say,

"Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so."

with respect to there being transitionals.

A transitional fossil, by definition, is going to be an animal that shares traits of those pre existing (ancestral groups) and post existing (descendant groups) itself in the fossil succession. Tiktaalik having fins, gills and scales, depicts pre existing traits of fish. Tiktaalik presenting robust shoulders and wrist bones, and a flat head with an unfused skull, are traits of amphibians, which are post existing descendant groups.

It is, by the nature of its existence, a transitional fossil, which you requested proof of existence.

But, I will let it go, if you would like.

 

[NobleMouse]

@AFrazier
In fairness, you did say,

"Proof please. Saying it doesn't make it so."

with respect to there being transitionals.

A transitional fossil, by definition, is going to be an animal that shares traits of those pre existing (ancestral groups) and post existing (descendant groups) itself in the fossil succession. Tiktaalik having fins, gills and scales, depicts pre existing traits of fish. Tiktaalik presenting robust shoulders and wrist bones, and a flat head with an unfused skull, are traits of amphibians, which are post existing descendant groups.

It is, by the nature of its existence, a transitional fossil, which you requested proof of existence.

But, I will let it go, if you would like.

Hi K-BIF, we haven't chatted in a while - hope things are going well for you brother!

I enjoy poking at evolution for amusement from time to time and would start off to say that aside from (macro)evolution not being in alignment with the Bible, I think the discussion around transitional fossils carries with it high hopes but with little empirical support.

From what I've been reading about fossils is that by in large, what gets classified as a 'transitional' fossil is the very rare exception... the rule of thumb is there are no transitional fossils. Will you agree that this is widely accepted within secular science, hence the development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium (basically, since scientists really aren't finding the extent of transitional fossils as would be expected in support of Darwinian evolution, the theory was developed that life doesn't gradually evolve but instead does nothing for long periods of time, then suddenly morphs drastically)?

Similar to Cambrian explosion - we suddenly have complex life (not really much to speak of as far as transitional forms).... hence the word "explosion" in the name. God created complex life from the beginning as is stated in Genesis (days 5 and 6 <-- actual days, see Exodus 20:8-11 if needing confirmation that Genesis is not allegory/poetry/imagery/etc...).

Also, Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to the main skeleton and would not have supported it's weight, so it is speculation to suggest this represents the missing link between sea and land life. Tiktaalik was a fish, just as God created fish on day 5. That's not to say it wasn't different from the 'original' types of fish created on day 5 as there may have been micro-evolutionary changes that allowed it to develop as a species and adapt to it's environment, but it was a fish from the beginning and was a fish up to the time it went extinct.

 

[JackRT]

That's not to say it wasn't different from the 'original' types of fish created on day 5 as there may have been micro-evolutionary changes that allowed it to develop as a species

What you have just described is macro-evolution.

 

[NobleMouse]

What you have just described is macro-evolution.

Dang, your dog is too cute!! Is he rotten or well-behaved? I digress...

Now, to macro-evolution, it is my understanding that fish that diversify and remain fish only occurs as a result of micro-evolution... as akin to Noah only needing to have 2 of every kind (Google Baraminology for how creationist scientists are classifying "kinds"), say the bear kind, which can diversity and become all the variety of bears we have today.

Contrary to micro-evolution, I thought macro-evolution was at a level above species, that explains how primitive protozoa eventually became me (did not happen this I know, for the Bible tells me so). Anyway, please elaborate the terms as one thing I'll say is true about evolution is that the ideas keep changing and evolving so what one thought to be true 10 years ago may no longer be true today.

 

[JackRT]

Dang, your dog is too cute!! Is he rotten or well-behaved?

Thank you. She is gone two years now. Very high energy. Totally loving. Absolutely fearless --- or stupid. Took her three skunks to master the technique of killing them without getting sprayed. I miss her deeply.

 

[NobleMouse]

Thank you. She is gone two years now. Very high energy. Totally loving. Absolutely fearless --- or stupid. Took her three skunks to master the technique of killing them without getting sprayed. I miss her deeply.

I am so sorry to hear, but truly glad she brought you much joy and I'm sure some laughs along the way! I have a 3-yr old female beagle and a 4-yr old female Jack-Chi (sp?)... Jack Russell-Chihauhau mix. The Jack_Chi is like a 12-lb soldier that is super attentive, obedient, and intelligent. The beagle is... well, she's... sweet and loving - we'll just leave it at that - ha ha.

Without getting too far off topic, I believe God created a dog kind and as has been observed in just a short amount of time, dogs can be bred, cross-bred and we can have a very diverse 'kind' as we see today. Going back to the earliest life forms found in geological layers we don't see a slow gradual progression, but rather a sudden appearance of very complex life... which wouldn't require millions/billions of years to arrive at the life we see in the present.

Thoughts?

 

[The Barbarian]

Also, Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to the main skeleton

But a little later...

Acanthostega does have legs attached to the spine. It's still a fish, with fishlike tail, internal gills, lateral line sytem, and so on, but it walked on the bottom of ponds and streams. Still a bit too weak to hold itself up on land.

But a bit later...

Icthyostega could walk on land, and did. Still pretty fishlike,but less so than it's predecessors.

That's not to say it wasn't different from the 'original' types of fish created on day 5 as there may have been micro-evolutionary changes that allowed it to develop as a species and adapt to it's environment, but it was a fish from the beginning and was a fish up to the time it went extinct.

As you see, all these are relatively small changes between each step. But there's a big difference between the earliest in the line, and Icthyostega.

 

[dcalling]

You are mistaken, since I've never quoted chromosome 2 as a piece of evidence for evolution. You quote me as saying that we have scientifically tested the theory that there was a chromosome fusion that produced our chromosome 2.

I am not mistaken. I asked for a repeatable verifable test for common descent of human and apes, and chromosome 2 fusion is exactly the thing you provided.

You appear to be confused about something quite basic. What I described in that link is this: If common descent is true, then we will see several specific things. When we look at the data, we see exactly those things. The English word for this process is "test"; what I describe is a test of the theory of common descent. It doesn't stop being a test just because you want to call it something else. The overall process of developing the hypothesis ("common descent"), constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways"), and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations") is called "science".

Now, if you think that the test I described isn't evidence for common descent, all you have to do is come up with an alternate explanation for the observed data. So far your response to evidence consists of nothing but saying "Is not". So have at it: what's the other explanation for the data?

I am not confused, as your test described above got way too many flows. Now let's assume it is some "aliens" that created life on earth, based on your steps I can create the following so called test (with your word substituted, from mutation to the aliens reused prior DNA like a library):
developing the hypothesis (change "common descent" to alien creation)
constructing the test ("interspecies differences should look like mutations in the following ways" change mutations to DNA reuse)
and applying the test to real data ("interspecies differences among primates look exactly like mutations" again change mutations to "DNA reuse")

See how everything much up? And because we don't see any fossile evidence of one sort of species very gradually changing to other species, and that we still have species that didn't change much for millions of years, they all pointed to creation. Since you reject God I simple substitude God to alien so you can see clearly.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi K-BIF, we haven't chatted in a while - hope things are going well for you brother!

I enjoy poking at evolution for amusement from time to time and would start off to say that aside from (macro)evolution not being in alignment with the Bible, I think the discussion around transitional fossils carries with it high hopes but with little empirical support.

From what I've been reading about fossils is that by in large, what gets classified as a 'transitional' fossil is the very rare exception... the rule of thumb is there are no transitional fossils. Will you agree that this is widely accepted within secular science, hence the development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium (basically, since scientists really aren't finding the extent of transitional fossils as would be expected in support of Darwinian evolution, the theory was developed that life doesn't gradually evolve but instead does nothing for long periods of time, then suddenly morphs drastically)?

Hi Noble Mouse,

Hope you are doing well, as well.

The best way to understand punctuated equilibrium (PE), is to look at the research published on it, by those who proposed it. But also to understand the perspective in which it is presented.

See above for a figure depicting differences in thought between the two.

It isnt that PE proposes that there are no intermediate forms (3 proto horses are noted in the figure above, before the first proto horse and the final modern day horse, for example). Rather, it proposes that intermediate forms are of rarer occurrence due to variable rates of evolution. Or rather appear in more intermittent locations, due to variable rates of evolution.

Alternatively, perspective is significant as well.

As the geologic record itself exists in a PE manner. Rocks do not exist in an infinite number of intermediate layers, so why should fossils?

It was never Goulds intent to propose that there were no transitionals, rather, the fossil succession is composed of an intermittent fossil sequence due to one of the two reasons above (varying mutation rates, or temporal separation of rock).

But also, you have to take into account that Goulds PE is viewed through the lense of paleontology. The evidence originating from paleontology is not for or against PE, nor is it for or against gradualism. Rather it is a matter of perspective. From a paleontology stance, either could be true, or both at different times.

 

[Job 33:6]

Similar to Cambrian explosion - we suddenly have complex life (not really much to speak of as far as transitional forms).... hence the word "explosion" in the name. God created complex life from the beginning as is stated in Genesis (days 5 and 6 <-- actual days, see Exodus 20:8-11 if needing confirmation that Genesis is not allegory/poetry/imagery/etc...).

The cambrian explosion is predated some 100 million years by microscopic shelled organisms, some presenting the same morphological features as those seen in the explosion. Things like brachiopods, mollusks, echinoderms etc.

Arthropod trace fossils predate the cambrian explosion as well.

So, it isnt as sudden as some make it out to be, 100 million years is quite a long time.

Even if we ignored things like the first microscopic shelled organisms, and strictly stuck with a time frame between kimberella, and the burgess shale, we are still looking at 50 million years of time, which is an extraordinarily long amount of time. Even if it were just 10 million, this too would be extraordinarily long.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, Tiktaalik's fin was not attached to the main skeleton and would not have supported it's weight, so it is speculation to suggest this represents the missing link between sea and land life. Tiktaalik was a fish, just as God created fish on day 5. That's not to say it wasn't different from the 'original' types of fish created on day 5 as there may have been micro-evolutionary changes that allowed it to develop as a species and adapt to it's environment, but it was a fish from the beginning and was a fish up to the time it went extinct.

You speak as if tiktaalik is a single specimen. Several specimen have been discovered (at least 10 individual tiktaaliks). They have robust shoulder bones, and wrist bones that rotate, with flat heads with eyes on top like an alligator. Their skulls are also unfused from the rest of their body.

These certainly are not fish. And by trying to debate the point, all you are doing is justifying its place as a mixture and transitional between the two. The only reason we are able to even have this dispute is because tiktaalik is both fish and non fish, in one body.

 

[Job 33:6]

See how everything much up? And because we don't see any fossile evidence of one sort of species very gradually changing to other species,

Did you see my post about tiktaalik?