Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Two problems with that:
1. No evidence for it.
2. No scriptural support for it.

Are you asking me in a round about way for evidence and Scriptural support?

No, I'm pointing out that there is no scriptural support for YE creationism.

The way you speak makes it sound certain that you know there is none.

I've listened to the arguments of people who tried to make some scriptural support for it. No one ever succeeded. I've looked for it myself. Nothing there.

 

[GenemZ]

Barbarian observes:
Two problems with that:
1. No evidence for it.
2. No scriptural support for it.



No, I'm pointing out that there is no scriptural support for YE creationism.

So...that's what you are referring to? That you have been saying those things in regards to Young Earth creationism only? I am no apologist for YE creationism.

I've listened to the arguments of people who tried to make some scriptural support for it. No one ever succeeded. I've looked for it myself. Nothing there.

I see. YE creationism in my observation has been the result of too much superficial Bible study mixed with a strong emotional drive to preserve traditionalism. Yet? They can have intellectually astute people on their team that will try to prevent the others from listening to the reason and logic that the Scriptures provide. When it gets like that? Its politics... not about sound faith.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Is there are proof of either?

Microevolution is fact, macroevolution is theory...a pitiful theory loosing steam these days.

 

[The Barbarian]

Microevolution is fact,

Macroevolution has been directly observed. Can't do better than that.

macroevolution is theory...

So is gravity. Don't go jumping off any high places, until you learn what "theory" means in science. Actually, evolution is more firmly established as a fact than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

a pitiful theory loosing steam these days.

The last world-class scientist who doubted evolution died in the early 1900s. And even the general public shows more acceptance of the theory:

Few issues have divided the American public as bitterly as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Since On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, it has driven a wedge between those who accept that humans and this planet’s other inhabitants have evolved over time, and those who believe that our species was created in its current form with no alterations. While the majority of people in Europe and in many other parts of the world accept evolution, the United States lags behind. Today, 4 in 10 adults in America believe that humans have existed in our present form since the beginning of time, and in many religious groups, that number is even higher. This is woeful.

Now, at long last, there seems to be hope: National polls show that creationism is beginning to falter, and Americans are finally starting to move in favor of evolution. After decades of legal battles, resistance to science education, and a deeply rooted cultural divide, evolution may be poised to win out once and for all.
...
The increase in younger people embracing evolution is “quite striking,” says Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University and an expert witness the landmark court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, which kicked “intelligent design” out of public school classrooms in 2005. “We’re moving in the right direction.”
Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, Especially Among the Young

About 57% of Americans accept evolution as a fact, the great majority of them saying that God did it.
In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

That's a new high for evolution in America.

 

[GenemZ]

Macroevolution has been directly observed. Can't do better than that.

Why no examples?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So is gravity. Don't go jumping off any high places, until you learn what "theory" means in science. Actually, evolution is more firmly established as a fact than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't sure why gravity works.

Gravity or what we use the term for is demonstratable Science, where macroevolution is not. So the comparison you are making is apples to oranges, hold them both and drop to see gravity in action. Knowing exactly how something works is not the test for what is considered theory. We do not understand exactly every detail of how the brain works, that does not make the Science behind the knowledge a theory. That you make no distinction between micro and macro evolution is sloppy and slippery science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Gravity or what we use the term for is demonstratable Science, where macroevolution is not.

That's wrong. Speciation is well-documented, to the point that many creationist organizations have redefined "macroevolution" to "evolution so far that we're sure no human could live long enough to observe it."

Knowing exactly how something works is not the test for what is considered theory.

Of course. Gravity is an observed theory, just like evolution, but we don't know for sure why gravity works. A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence.

We do not understand exactly every detail of how the brain works, that does not make the Science behind the knowledge a theory.

Actually, it does. For example, we understand how signals are transmitted in the brain. We have abundant evidence, repeatedly confirming the predictions. Hence, it is now a theory. Is it possible you aren't familiar with the meaning of "theory?"

That you make no distinction between micro and macro evolution is sloppy and slippery science.

In fact, as Darwin pointed out, the distinction is not clear and well-defined. That is one reason that the theory is well-accepted. If species were uniquely created, then there would be nice neat divisions between taxa. But as Darwin documented, that is not the case. We see all sorts of intermediate case, half-species, quarter-species, and so on.

Which is precisely what you would see, if macroevolution was making new species. However, the directly observed cases of speciation make it clear that is how new taxa evolve.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That's wrong. Speciation is well-documented, to the point that many creationist organizations have redefined "macroevolution" to "evolution so far that we're sure no human could live long enough to observe it."

Of course. Gravity is an observed theory, just like evolution, but we don't know for sure why gravity works. A theory is an idea or group of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence.

Actually, it does. For example, we understand how signals are transmitted in the brain. We have abundant evidence, repeatedly confirming the predictions. Hence, it is now a theory. Is it possible you aren't familiar with the meaning of "theory?"

In fact, as Darwin pointed out, the distinction is not clear and well-defined. That is one reason that the theory is well-accepted. If species were uniquely created, then there would be nice neat divisions between taxa. But as Darwin documented, that is not the case. We see all sorts of intermediate case, half-species, quarter-species, and so on.

Which is precisely what you would see, if macroevolution was making new species. However, the directly observed cases of speciation make it clear that is how new taxa evolve.

Based on your comments, from your perspective, my perspective replies; therefore evolution is not a theory, it is detailed mythos based on reality similar to the J.R. Tolkien's Lord of Rings novels. As I stated from the first, I can accept what is called; "micro-evolution", but macro has become religious dogmatic myth designed to ridicule and demean often from a pesudo-intellectual position. The fact is, macro-evolution is not observable, the evolving of one species kingdom into another completely different species kingdom. Adaption of species within the same kingdom or classification is a feature of micro-evolution.

 

[GenemZ]

Barbarian observes:
Two problems with that:
1. No evidence for it.
2. No scriptural support for it.

No, I'm pointing out that there is no scriptural support for YE creationism.

Wait a minute...

Since I was not speaking of anything concerning YE creationism. Matter of fact. Just the opposite. Is evolution a fact or theory?

It looks like by your response that you just do not want to be bothered with dealing with what was said... If that is how you concentrate?

 

[The Barbarian]

Based on your comments, from your perspective, my perspective replies; therefore evolution is not a theory, it is detailed mythos based on reality similar to the J.R. Tolkien's Lord of Rings novels.

No, that's wrong, too. A theory must have evidence to support it. More specifically, a theory must make predictions that are later confirmed.

Here's a few of the many, many confirmed predictions:
1. "There will be found transitionals between dinosaurs and bird." (Huxley 19th century)
We have now found many such transitional forms.
2. Fitness in a population tends to increase over time. (Darwin)
This has been repeatedly verified by observation.
3. There should be fossils showing transitionals between land mammals and whales. (Huxley)
There are now numerous fossils showing that transition.
4. Whales should be genetically closes to ungulates, compared to all other groups (early 20th century)
DNA analysis confirms the prediction.
5. New organs and traits should evolve by random mutation and natural selection. (Morgan, Mayr, et al)
This has been directly observed to happen.
6. There should be fossils of forms transitional between fish and land animals. (Gray, Darwin)
We now have an entire series of forms from barely like tetrapods to something arguably a tetrapod.

If you doubt any of these, I'll show you, one at a time. And there are many, many more.

As I stated from the first, I can accept what is called; "micro-evolution", but macro has become religious dogmatic myth

As you now see, that's incorrect. In fact, there are cases where microevolution can become retroactively macroevoluton. Would you like to learn about that?

The fact is, macro-evolution is not observable

It's been directly observed.

the evolving of one species kingdom into another completely different species kingdom.

Like a protist evolving into an animal? This is the creationist dodge; "macroevolution is only evolution so great that no one could ever directly observe it." That's so obvious, no one really believes it. However, we can test the idea that animals evolved from protists. Would you like to learn how we know this?

Adaption of species within the same kingdom or classification is a feature of micro-evolution.

That would be broad enough to classify the evolution of humans from other primates as "microevolution." Are you sure you want to do that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Why no examples?

Drosophyla miranda; a new species
http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1208619&blobtype=pdf

 

[GenemZ]

3. There should be fossils showing transitionals between land mammals and whales. (Huxley)
There are now numerous fossils showing that transition.

There are fossils that are being forced into a scenario that can make it appear that way. You, and others who wish to see things that way, all failed to see that God did not begin with this creation we now see. YE creationists also fail to see this amazing factor.

Now...in our future? ... God will once again remove one creation (this current creation) and replace it with a new creation. One that will occur over night. Not evolution. But, similarities will exist between the old and the new!

Isaiah in the 65th chapter, tells us a new and better creation will someday grace the surface of this planet we now stand upon.

17 “See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.

20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
they and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.


If you were alive at the future time? And, you and others found fossils of this current creation? And, were ignorant of what the Bible teaches? You could start the concept of macro evolution, and others so like minded could become your followers. Lions eating grass? That is not micro. "Microbiotics," maybe. But not not even micro evolution. God will do it!

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
3. There should be fossils showing transitionals between land mammals and whales. (Huxley)
There are now numerous fossils showing that transition.

There are fossils that are being forced into a scenario that can make it appear that way.

Wrong. Pakicetus, for example, has many features found only in whales, and yet was a land creature. The skull is so whale-like that until the rest of the skeleton was found, it was assumed that the creature was completely aquatic. Precisely what was predicted for a transitional between land creatures and whales, and exactly what creationists claimed could not exist.

 

[GenemZ]

Wrong. Pakicetus, for example, has many features found only in whales, and yet was a land creature. The skull is so whale-like that until the rest of the skeleton was found, it was assumed that the creature was completely aquatic. Precisely what was predicted for a transitional between land creatures and whales, and exactly what creationists claimed could not exist.

So? That does not prove a thing.

It only proves that if someone is hungry to make their point.... They will jump on it. What you said proves nothing. An amphibian vehicle can share many of the same mechanics as a land car, and a submarine. God is the designer. He does not get bored with perfection, and will use what works where he wills it to work.

If you leave God out of the equation? That there is no God? And, that he did not create this current creation? Then, go to town with what now only amounts to speculation. In a good court of law, such reasoning would not be accepted outright.

Will this be evolution? hmm?

25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Wrong. Pakicetus, for example, has many features found only in whales, and yet was a land creature. The skull is so whale-like that until the rest of the skeleton was found, it was assumed that the creature was completely aquatic. Precisely what was predicted for a transitional between land creatures and whales, and exactly what creationists claimed could not exist.

So?

So we have the a predicted transitional form between land animals and whales, which creationists asserted could not exist. There are many, many such transitionals, which, as creationist Kurt Wise admits, is strong evidence for evolution. Even more compelling, is the fact that there are never any transitional forms where the theory says they shouldn't exist.

It only proves that if someone is hungry to make their point....

Theories are validated by such confirmed predictions.

What you said proves nothing.

It merely indicates descent of whales from land ungulates.

An amphibian vehicle...

...is an artifact built by humans. Which does not indicate common descent. As you now see, the most important fact of these transitional forms is that they validate the predictions of evolutionary theory.

If you leave God out of the equation?

Don't see how you could do that. Remember, He created nature and evolution.

That there is no God?

I can't agree with you on that. God just happened to be a lot wiser and more powerful than most creationists would like Him to be.

And, that he did not create this current creation?

Do you think you are a creature of God? Or is that invalidated, if He used nature to make your body?

 

[tbenedetto]

Genesis 1:24-25

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. God says He created living things by natural means, from the earth. He uses nature for most things that He does in this world.

 

[GenemZ]

Yep. God says He created living things by natural means, from the earth. He uses nature for most things that He does in this world.

But you keep denying God's Word. He created every creature after its own kind. Not some whale that was going to later mutate into a land animal.

All animals that have lungs did not evolve from one common ancestor having developed lungs. Yet, if a whale and a land creature shares some common structural similarities? ... You jump to conclude one evolved from the other.

God has a giant parts bin.

 

[GenemZ]

I can't agree with you on that. God just happened to be a lot wiser and more powerful than most creationists would like Him to be.

And long suffering...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. God says He created living things by natural means, from the earth. He uses nature for most things that He does in this world.

But you keep denying God's Word.

Nope. I'm denying your word.

He created every creature after its own kind.

The difference is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Not some whale that was going to later mutate into a land animal.

That's what the evidence shows. And since there's nothing in scripture that denies it...

All animals that have lungs did not evolve from one common ancestor having developed lungs.

All vertebrate lungs evolved from the same ancestors. Lungs appeared in fish long before there were land animals. Would you like to see how we know?

Yet, if a whale and a land creature shares some common structural similarities?

Here, you're confusing analogous organs to homologous ones. For example, the horizontal flukes of whales are analogous to fish tail fins and homologous to the galloping motion of land animals. Homology shows common descent; analogous organs do not.

Oh, and DNA analysis shows that the prediction was indeed correct.