Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

Where? I haven't seen it quote otherwise. Is it the quote that you gave? I already explained why it didn't say what you said it did? Did you understand that explanation?

I understand that you want to debate the idea of evolution being fact, but the article did say that it has not yet be proven. That makes it theory.

 

[Ron21647]

Hense the name, Theory of Evolution.

I disagree with ron that once something stands up to falsifacation it is fact. Germ theory is still a theory even though it has stood up against falsifacations. A theory has nowhere farther to go beyond a theory. (remember though, a scientific theory (like evolution) is different from the common place use of theory or guess.)

perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. Yes, you are right.

Ron

 

[gluadys]

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

Almost there.

Creation is not quite a "fact". It is a Christian (and Jewish/ Muslim/other) belief about why we exist. We exist because God created us.


Our existence, and the existence of the universe is a fact, and in theistic religions, we owe that existence to a Creator God.

(Naturally a person who does not believe in God would have a different belief on why we exist.)

So far, so good?

Evolution is NOT a general theory about how the universe was created or about how life was created. (There are other scientific theories that deal with those questions.)

Evolution is about the historic changes in life forms from which the diversity of modern living forms has come about.

Now, here again we have a fact: it is indisputable that living species change over time, and that on occasion, they speciate (divide into two or more species). That fact is called "evolution".

And when people call evolution a "fact", they are talking about direct observation of species change and of speciation.

Now the theory of evolution seeks to explain how those changes we call "evolution" occur. Can we figure out what is happening when a species changes its characteristics from one generation to another? Why and how do those changes take place? Can we trace modern species back to earlier species known to have existed in the past? Can we develop a "family tree" (aka cladogram, phylogenetic tree) which shows the relationships of one species or group of species to another? All of those things go into the theory of evolution.

Within the theory of evolution there are what you might call sub-theories. Natural selection is a theory about one of the mechanisms of evolution. Common descent is a theory that all living species are related through evolution from a common ancestor. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory about the tempo and range of speciation. Each of these has its own set of supporting data. And as each of these is a part of the overall theory of evolution, all the data gathered in support of each of these, contributes to the factual support for the theory of evolution.

Hope this helps.

 

[Arikay]

Razz: Germ theory (the theory that many diseases are caused by micro organisms) has not been "proven" yet, and is "just a theory." I think you missunderstand what a theory is.


Ron: Although there are somethings (like germ theory for example) that have so much going for them that they are treated as fact even though they are still a theory. The theory of evolution is another one of those things which although still a theory, it has so much evidence for it, and has held its own against falsifacation that many people treat it as fact.

 

[Tomk80]

I understand that you want to debate the idea of evolution being fact, but the article did say that it has not yet be proven. That makes it theory.

I'll look at the article again. I'm wondering what you see as 'proven'.

Fact: speciation has been observed. Evolution as fact.
Theory: Evolution occurs through natural selection and mutation. Very soundly grounded in observation, but theory nonetheless.

 

[The Bellman]

I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.

No definitions have been created "to fit the purpose". When talking about science, we are using the standard meaning of the words as they relate to science. The fact that "most people" aren't aware of those (correct) meanings is irrelevant.

Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.

Nobody is suggesting that a theory is an absolute - that is a strawman of your creation. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Since evolution (in this context) is a scientific concept, the words 'theory' and 'fact' as applied to it are words as they relate to science. Evolution is thus a scientific theory; it is not a theory in the more general sense of the word (such as "I have a theory...Jeeves did it!").

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

Creation is not a fact, simply because creation implies a creator. We are here. THAT is the fact. Whether we were created by a creator or simply came into being as a result of natural processes is moot.

Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created. It is a scientific theory that relates to the development/change of biological entities.

One of the problems here is that you don't understand what evolution IS.

Evolution is the change of allelle frequencies within a gene pool. That this occurs is a fact, observed repeatedly and conceded even by creationist groups. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory about how and why evolution (remember, an observed fact) occurs. This theory has been sufficiently evidenced and validated that it can and is also referred to as a fact.

Evolution thus is both fact and theory.

 

[The Bellman]

most of the data does not prove evolutionary theory

False.

 

[USincognito]

If after 11 pages we're still arguing semantics, rather than evidence, I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[razzelflabben]

razzelflabben

I have been trying to find time to thoroughly read this thread, figure out where you are coming from, and join the discussion. This is the first time I have been able to. And actually I have not read the whole thread. Only your posts. So excuse me if I repeat replies you have already heard.

What I want to do first is see if I understand your position.

I seem to be hearing three messages:

a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, I’ll spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.

a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)

a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Which brings me to the second message I think I am hearing from you:
b) The lack of overwhelming evidence for evolution means it is a theory. Because it is a theory, it is not a fact.

Does that fairly reflect your opinion?

Third message:
c) There are three theories on the origin of species: creationism, intelligent design and evolution.

Is it correct to note that these are not mutually exclusive theories? e.g. ID may (does?) include elements of both creationism and evolution. Both creationism and ID include elements of evolution.

Decent basic critique.

Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method. I expect others have been trying to explain some of the errors in your thinking about this.

Not at all, just the assumptions that are going along with the scientific method that I have a problem with.

Now for a couple of quick comments.

Basically, you are right, of course. Science seeks to interpret or “make sense” of data. In principle, more than one interpretation is possible. When scientific consensus coalesces around a single interpretation, it is because that particular interpretation makes better sense of the data than any competing interpretation. Currently, the theory of common descent (aka evolution) makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists working in the field who have intimate knowledge of the data.

I have found in talking with people, that few people on either side of the issue understand the theory of creationism of ID as put forth in the Bible. A good starting point in understanding what is involved in the theory is The Genesis Record (I think that is the exact title) big book discussing the theory and what posibilities the theory allow for and what possibilities are not allowed for. To date, I have not seen sugnificant scientific data that makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. For example, many evolutionists focus on old earth, new earth data to prove creationism false. In truth, the theory of creation as purposed in the bible (primary teaching on creationism) does not exclude the posibility of old earth creation. Now many creationists only claim young earth but this is only one strand of the theory and old earth does nothing to disprove the heart of the theory. This is only one example of what I am talking about.

(Please note the emphasized section. It expresses as best I can, the actual scientific criterion for backing one theory rather than another. I expect to come back to it many times.)

Noted and used to defend my stand.

Again, in principle you are right. All three offer an interpretation of data, and in that sense can be called theories. However, there is another step to be taken before the scientific community endows an interpretation with the title “theory”. That step is examining how well the theory predicts data.

In other words, starting from the theory, what data can one deduce that ought to exist---and does the data that the theory says ought to exist coincide with the real-life data that does exist?

The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?

Absolutely but again, we must understand the theory before we can dismiss it as not being able to predict data. Here is another example, the DNA evidence presented on this thread in relation to trees. From the standpoint of creation as put forth in the bible, one would expect that trees that are similar would have similar but different DNA. This is true and carries through with the idea of creation. Yet people here are using that as proof against creation. Creation does not say that there are no similar elements in nature, such as, alligators and croc's have similar teeth structure. That is consistant. What is also consistant is the they are different enough to be two completely different creatures. Also consistant with the data.

On that basis we can make the following evaluation of the three theories.

Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.

Certain strains of the theory yes, but not the theory as presented by the primary authority.

ID is at best an unsupported theory. It predicts data which may exist, but it has not been established that it does exist. On a more philosophical level, it also fails to explain the existence of less than optimum design in many species.

Of the evidence I have seen precented to support evolution, it does as much to support ID as evolution. If there is new information that contridicts the info I have looked at, please present it, I am not a science buff, but as of yet, I haven't seen it. Again, it is the interpretation of the data and how it lines up with the theory that we need to examine, not our bent on proving or disproving a theory.

Evolution (common descent) is a robust theory. The data which it predicts must exist, do exist. In several cases, such data was found after it was first predicted. Some predicted data has not been discovered yet, but of all similar data which has been discovered, none has failed to support the theory of evolution. Unlike the other two theories, the theory of evolution is useful in its practical applications and in directing future research.

Again, what data fails to support the other two theories, not specific strains of the theory. Similar idea as was precented for the theory of evolution. Fact and theory discussion. ID theory has been supported by the scientific data. The so called "missing link" does not disprove ID or prove evolution. It proves that there are creatures we still do not have proof of existing.

Again, you are right as far as it goes. The theory of evolution is a theory which explains or interprets data. The theory of evolution is an explanation of facts, not a fact in itself. However, what you are missing is that part of the data which the theory interprets are the observed instances of evolution!

What observed instances of evolution? I thought that according to the theory of evolution, millions of years were needed to observe evolution!

In short, we know evolution happens because we have observed it happening. That evolution happens is a fact. And it is one of the facts which the theory of evolution tries to make sense of.

What observations of evolution have we witnessed, the theory of evolution I was taught, says that millions of years are required to observe evolutionary change. This is truely new data, please direct me to the scientific data that shows animal species evolving into other creatures appart form mans maniputlation. This should have been all overe the news! I might have to change my mind if you can support this data. Micro evolution is genetics, and is consistant with ID, macro evolution is not a proven anything unless you have new evidence.

Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.

According to this statement, then ID is also fact and theory. Is that what we should teach in school? That both are fact and theory? The fact is what is observed, ID fits the data currently being shown unless you have something new to present. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occures, ID can explain why the facts occur.

Yes, theories change when new data requires a change. Theories are dynamic. Most theories have gaps and imperfections in them when first proposed. They do not adequately explain all the facts they are supposed to explain. And, of course, they cannot be expected to explain facts which are yet to be discovered. Since facts, data, always trump theory—when there is a discrepancy between an observation and the predictions of the theory, work begins on seeing what amendments are needed to bring the theory in line with the facts.

That is scientific method---to always give priority to the data and modify the theory to fit the data, not shoe-horn the data into the existing theory. That is why scientific theories are always provisional, at least in principle.

And that is why C gave way to ID.

 

[razzelflabben]

Almost there.

Creation is not quite a "fact". It is a Christian (and Jewish/ Muslim/other) belief about why we exist. We exist because God created us.


Our existence, and the existence of the universe is a fact, and in theistic religions, we owe that existence to a Creator God.

(Naturally a person who does not believe in God would have a different belief on why we exist.)

So far, so good?

Evolution is NOT a general theory about how the universe was created or about how life was created. (There are other scientific theories that deal with those questions.)

Evolution is about the historic changes in life forms from which the diversity of modern living forms has come about.

Now, here again we have a fact: it is indisputable that living species change over time, and that on occasion, they speciate (divide into two or more species). That fact is called "evolution".

And when people call evolution a "fact", they are talking about direct observation of species change and of speciation.

Now the theory of evolution seeks to explain how those changes we call "evolution" occur. Can we figure out what is happening when a species changes its characteristics from one generation to another? Why and how do those changes take place? Can we trace modern species back to earlier species known to have existed in the past? Can we develop a "family tree" (aka cladogram, phylogenetic tree) which shows the relationships of one species or group of species to another? All of those things go into the theory of evolution.

Within the theory of evolution there are what you might call sub-theories. Natural selection is a theory about one of the mechanisms of evolution. Common descent is a theory that all living species are related through evolution from a common ancestor. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory about the tempo and range of speciation. Each of these has its own set of supporting data. And as each of these is a part of the overall theory of evolution, all the data gathered in support of each of these, contributes to the factual support for the theory of evolution.

Hope this helps.

Here is the problem, what animals have evolved into a new species and where is the proof. The scientific proof that we have witnessed evolving species is not in any of the resources at my disposal. There are theories about it, micro evolution (genetics), there are claims that do not prove what they claim to prove, etc. But no actual proof anywhere that I can find. Without those observations, it is still only theory. So where is the animal that we have watched become a new creature over time. Where is this so called evidence and why is is so well hidden from bloks like me?

 

[razzelflabben]

Razz: Germ theory (the theory that many diseases are caused by micro organisms) has not been "proven" yet, and is "just a theory." I think you missunderstand what a theory is.

I don't know what this is referring to, I said nothing at all about germ theory, but that is okay.

Ron: Although there are somethings (like germ theory for example) that have so much going for them that they are treated as fact even though they are still a theory. The theory of evolution is another one of those things which although still a theory, it has so much evidence for it, and has held its own against falsifacation that many people treat it as fact.

It is those who teach evolution as fact that I take issue with.

 

[Jet Black]

Here is the problem, what animals have evolved into a new species and where is the proof.

how are you defining species? I hope you are aware that according to standard biological definitions speciation has been observed.

 

[razzelflabben]

No definitions have been created "to fit the purpose". When talking about science, we are using the standard meaning of the words as they relate to science. The fact that "most people" aren't aware of those (correct) meanings is irrelevant.


Nobody is suggesting that a theory is an absolute - that is a strawman of your creation. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Since evolution (in this context) is a scientific concept, the words 'theory' and 'fact' as applied to it are words as they relate to science. Evolution is thus a scientific theory; it is not a theory in the more general sense of the word (such as "I have a theory...Jeeves did it!").


Creation is not a fact, simply because creation implies a creator. We are here. THAT is the fact. Whether we were created by a creator or simply came into being as a result of natural processes is moot.

Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created. It is a scientific theory that relates to the development/change of biological entities.

One of the problems here is that you don't understand what evolution IS.

Evolution is the change of allelle frequencies within a gene pool. That this occurs is a fact, observed repeatedly and conceded even by creationist groups. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory about how and why evolution (remember, an observed fact) occurs. This theory has been sufficiently evidenced and validated that it can and is also referred to as a fact.

Evolution thus is both fact and theory.

Already addressed these arguements in other posts, just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you post.

 

[Gracchus]

Where is this so called evidence and why is is so well hidden from bloks like me?

It is hidden from "bloks" (blokes?) like you for the same reason tensor analysis is hidden from banana slugs.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't know what this is referring to, I said nothing at all about germ theory, but that is okay.

This is referring to the fact that if you reject evolution as a theory with enough scientific backing, the same holds for germ theory. The theories are arrived at by the same process. So if the process isn't right with evolution theory, why would it be right when germ theory is considered.

It is those who teach evolution as fact that I take issue with.

One of my favorite observations for evolution are ring species. This shows evolution as fact. When you type in speciation in the search function here, you should get at least two or three threads with observed instances of speciation, which also show evolution as fact.

 

[Puddleglum]

In another thread, razzelflabben has launched a critique of evolution. Since that thread has nothing to do with evolution at all, I decided to bring that discussion over here



Evolution is not perfect. No species has evolved to the point of perfection..

no species has evolved ,period, works better.

.As I have explained, the Paluxy river footprints are a known fraud. .

kind of like Piltdown man, Lamark, Abiogenisis eh ?.

If you know of another claim of dinosaur and human footprints together, could you tell us about it, please?.


And were they written by evolutionists? Can you tell us one or two that you have read? Because you seem to misunderstand some of the basics of evolution theory..

I have read Darwin, Gould, and heaps of others and it doesnt dissuad me.

Okay, you don't think evolution is true? Why not? What evidence do you have?..

just because you think {Ha} evolution
is true, doesn't make it fact. .[/quote]


Do you have any other explanation for the mammal-like reptiles, other than that they were transitionals between mammals and reptiles?.[/quote]they are really interesting fossil, no more. anyway mammal- like reptile is a bogus term use Therapsid instead .

But you have no other explanation for the fossil record, do you?

That's why science is self-correcting. .

And self-tripping.

Are you better at interpreting geologic evidence than scientists are?.

Who decides whos better? You?.

Who said we know everything? .

You dont say so, but you apparently think so..

But we do know that animals must have been progressing from microbes to modern animals throughout the ages..

When did this happen? I didnt get the memo..

Okay, as I asked before, does this mean that, when 99% of the people thought the earth was flat, that therefore the earth was flat?



Excuse me. There was never a time when it was probable that the earth was flat. It was always round. Humans just didn't know it.



It doesn't matter how many people believe something. Evolution is true based on the facts, not on the popular vote..

And these are?.

Please show me where I can find this mathematical study that proves evolution is unlikely.



Do you know any scientist who claims science to be infallible proof?


Excuse me. My son's kindergarten science class was more advanced than this. They learned that rockets go into outer space.

Our knowledge of evolution grows. .

more absurd every minute..

Do you know of any significant argument against evolution?.

it is called "Intelligent design".

Who claims that science is infallible?


I do not know if I am more intelligent than you. I know a little about evolutionary theory, and why it is completely accepted by science. Do you have any reason to think evolution is wrong?

plenty.

 

[gluadys]

Here is the problem, what animals have evolved into a new species and where is the proof. The scientific proof that we have witnessed evolving species is not in any of the resources at my disposal. There are theories about it, micro evolution (genetics), there are claims that do not prove what they claim to prove, etc. But no actual proof anywhere that I can find. Without those observations, it is still only theory. So where is the animal that we have watched become a new creature over time. Where is this so called evidence and why is is so well hidden from bloks like me?

In order to deal with this question, we are need to deal with two other questions:

1. What is evolution? How do you know it has occurred and you have observed it?

2. What is a species?

And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.

Whose answers to these questions do we accept?

Different groups and individuals, different dictionaries, offer different definitions. Some of these definitions are good, some bad, some just use different criteria.

Much of the creo-evo mutual incomprehension derives from the fact that each camp defines "evolution" and "species" differently. Using creationist definitions (even when transferred to ID) means that some instances of "evolution" as defined by science are disallowed by creationists as not being "evolution" by their criteria.

In order for us to understand each other, we need to get around this dilemma of one person offering an example of evolution based on one set of criteria, while the other person refuses to accept it as an example of evolution based on a different set of criteria.

So, my first question is: what are your personal responses to the questions above?

Second question: what are the sources you have based these responses on?

Third question: do you think, if you looked into a standard biology textbook, you would find it defining these terms in the same way you do?

Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?

I want to assure you that I am not seeking to duck your question or the defence of evolution in the sense of common descent. But I have often seen creationists (not so much IDers) reject what scientists consider clear evidence of evolution on the basis that it is "not evolution, only adaptation". I see you distinguish between "genetics" and "evolution"--and we will need to clarify what that distinction is.

My position is that if the micro-instances of evolution which we can easily document are merely "adaptation" or "genetics", then so is macro-evolution. So is common descent. For scientifically, there is no known difference in the processes which produce small evolutionary changes and those that produce speciation and differentiation on larger scales.

So, I believe it is important that we agree on the definitions we will use (and I have a bias in favour of using the standard scientific definitions) before we continue.

What do you say?

P. S. I have much to comment on in your other post too, but it will have to wait until this evening.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

So explain Theraspids smart guy

 

[Arikay]

No species have evolved:
False,
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm
(one of the many examples)

Piltdown man:
And evolutionists stopped using Piltdown man after they discovered it was false. I can't say the same for creationist groups when they discover something is false.


I think I can stop right there and say, Maybe you should do more reading and less typing. Oh and im still waiting for you to back up your statements in the other thread.

 

[Puddleglum]

Because natural selection can only work for the good of that individual. Thus, natural selection is selfish. And isn't selfishness a part of evil?
[/i]
Well, they are. Even the new head of ICR, the son of Henry Morris, admits that they are.

But theories can be disproven. And creationism has been disproven. Also, by all reasonable standards, evolution has been proven to be true. I have a thread called "Evolution Proven". You are welcome to disagree there.

Theories are accepted as (provisionally) true when there is considerable supporting evidence for them. For instance, round earth is a theory. Any doubt in your mind it is "proven"?

Creationism is also a theory. Remember, it has been disproven.

Also remember that evolution is not atheism. DoubtingMerle is an atheist, but evolution will not prove his atheism. Instead, evolution is simply how (for a theist) God created .

In that case evolution was disproven by Louis Pasteur {True}and we can get on with our lives