Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

There is no evidence that supports creationism or ID (as has been discussed above, I'm not talking of spurious "evidence" for creationism or ID such as the observed evolution which creationism maintains can happen).

I am not sure what your point is, but the observation of animals on a daily basis procreating after their kind, is not scientific evidence how? It is data that can be analized and is observed daily. It provides proof to what the TOC says. How is it not evidence?

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzleflabben, would you please answer two basic questions about your strain of ID theory?

1.How did the first zebra come into existance? Science tells us that the zebra evolved over millions of years from a small dog-like creature known as Hyracotherium. (See Horse Evolution) Do you agree? If not, then how did the first zebra come into existance? Was there a stirring of a mud-puddle, and out popped the first zebra? Is that how it happened?

2. When were zebras created in relation to other animals? Science says there were other animals here for hundreds of millions of years before there were any zebras. Do you agree? If not, how long do you think it was from the first animal until the first zebra?

Unless you can answer such basic questions, you haven't begun to present an alternative to evolution. And unless you present us an alternative, than evolution wins by default. For it is the only alternative on the table.

Merle, I will not answer these questions at this time. Down the road maybe but not right now. I have just begun to get some here to understand what my point is, not what my beliefs are and it feels too good to revert back to what you want to discuss at this time.

My point is not nor has it ever been about which theory is right or wrong or more sound or less sound, or what I believe vs. what you believe, or etc etc etc. My point has always been about opening the lines of communication rather than closing them with arguements.

 

[Jet Black]

I am not sure what your point is, but the observation of animals on a daily basis procreating after their kind, is not scientific evidence how? It is data that can be analized and is observed daily. It provides proof to what the TOC says. How is it not evidence?

because you fail to describe what a kind is. the problem with the kind definition is that it offers nothing at all. the definition of species is known to be blurred, because the branching off of species is a slow and variable process, however with the defintion of species we know certain things, such as characteristics can be inherited and derived. now with species, we can turn this around and say that modern characteristics have been derived from something else, and can work our way back through the fossil (and genetic) record figuring out what has been derived and how. The problem with the kind definition is that it cannot do this. it cannot tell us how far back we have to go before we find the arbitrary stopping block between kinds. Using the conventional species definition and a general understanding of other cladistic issues such as parsimony we can say that therapsids for example are our ancestors, because they have partially mammalian features and partially reptillian features. we can say that the theropods are ancestors to birds, we can say that most of the organisms in the cambrian are ancestors to nothing at all, we can say that the various fossils are ancestors of ours and so on. but what can kinds do? nothing. they cannot tell us anything about the therapsids (are dogs and cats for example, both ancestors of the therapsid kind, or are they individually created. are dogs, cats and bears descendants of the mesonyx kind, or are they individually created? The creationist theory cannot explain Endogenous retriviral sequences, the creationsit theory cannot explain the matching patterns of chromosome 2 with chimp gorilla and orang utan chromosomes 2p and 2q. the creationist theory cannot explain ALU sequences. the creationist theory cannot explain why Spurges (family Euphorbiceae) Spurges have lost their petals, however some have evolved a life in which petals would be an advantage. However rather than re-evolve petals, (the instructions for which no doubt are still contained within the genome) in order to attract pollinators, the poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) have evolved such that their uppermost leaves are bright red, and they serve the same function as petals in other plants. evolutionary theory can.

 

[razzelflabben]

because you fail to describe what a kind is. the problem with the kind definition is that it offers nothing at all. the definition of species is known to be blurred, because the branching off of species is a slow and variable process, however with the defintion of species we know certain things, such as characteristics can be inherited and derived. now with species, we can turn this around and say that modern characteristics have been derived from something else, and can work our way back through the fossil (and genetic) record figuring out what has been derived and how. The problem with the kind definition is that it cannot do this. it cannot tell us how far back we have to go before we find the arbitrary stopping block between kinds. Using the conventional species definition and a general understanding of other cladistic issues such as parsimony we can say that therapsids for example are our ancestors, because they have partially mammalian features and partially reptillian features. we can say that the theropods are ancestors to birds, we can say that most of the organisms in the cambrian are ancestors to nothing at all, we can say that the various fossils are ancestors of ours and so on. but what can kinds do? nothing. they cannot tell us anything about the therapsids (are dogs and cats for example, both ancestors of the therapsid kind, or are they individually created. are dogs, cats and bears descendants of the mesonyx kind, or are they individually created? The creationist theory cannot explain Endogenous retriviral sequences, the creationsit theory cannot explain the matching patterns of chromosome 2 with chimp gorilla and orang utan chromosomes 2p and 2q. the creationist theory cannot explain ALU sequences. the creationist theory cannot explain why Spurges (family Euphorbiceae) Spurges have lost their petals, however some have evolved a life in which petals would be an advantage. However rather than re-evolve petals, (the instructions for which no doubt are still contained within the genome) in order to attract pollinators, the poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) have evolved such that their uppermost leaves are bright red, and they serve the same function as petals in other plants. evolutionary theory can.

So what you then are saying is that if C ists defined the terms better, (this also then allows for new categories to be developed that would prove C), then they could be classified as a scientific theory and then you would have no problems with the theory? Interesting! I'll work on a definition that should clear things up then. Maybe even a new system of chatagorizing animals. Should be interesting to see how it will be accepted by the scientific community.

 

[JohnR7]

Maybe even a new system of chatagorizing animals. Should be interesting to see how it will be accepted by the scientific community.

Does not matter what system you come up with, there are still going to be animals that do not neatly fit into any one catagory. Evolutionists will still claim that as evidence for evolutionism and creationists will continue to claim that as evidence for creationism.

 

[gluadys]

Now please tell me what ever has given you the idea that I am argueing for C or ID or even that I am argueing against E?

Everything you have said, especially if you agree that I have fairly represented your position in the post you just quoted.

How does one go from saying that all three are theory and should be addressed as such, to argueing for or against one of the theories?

By refusing to acknowledge the different quality of the theories when they are tested by observation. Observation shows us that the different theories do not have equivalent evidential support.

I thought E wasn't your belief system

Quite correct. Evolution is not my belief system. My belief system is creation. Note “creation” not “creationism”.

and yet you are turning this into a discussion about which theory is truth.

Would you please reread the post on scientific method? The method you claim to have no problems with?

An essential component of scientific method is to put theories to the test in order to determine whether or not they are true.

You would have us maintain all three theories in a limbo where no one is allowed to determine which is true. For you, any proponent of any of the three theories who tries to test the theory, tries to determine whether or not it is true, is retreating into a “belief” system. That is utter scientific nonsense.

Theories are meant to be tested against observations. They are meant to be revised when they fail to match observations. They are meant to be discarded if they contradict observations and cannot be amended to fit what we see.

So, yes, it is important scientifically, to discuss which theory is true. In fact, that is the only reason to discuss the theories at all.

Though that is not proof of a belief system, few people are this passionate about something that is fact, rather than a belief.

What I am passionate about is acknowledging a fact as fact and not calling it a belief. But you have taken an a priori position that simply to say that evolution is a fact is a statement of belief, rather than a sound and rational conclusion from observed evidence.

“Evolution is a fact.” That is not a statement of belief. It is a statement that is either true or false, and can be tested to see which it is. And, it has been tested and been shown to be true.

“God used evolution to create diverse life forms.” That is a statement of belief. I believe it to be true, but I cannot test it out to show that it is true. Nor can anyone test it out to show that it is false.

How many times have I told you, that my only issue is with those who claim that the TOE is fact, or that science holds all the answers to life.

And again you link ideas of a totally different quality. The latter statement is a philosophical statement that even many scientists reject (possibly especially scientists—for I think they are often more aware of the questions science does not answer than science-worshipping lay persons.)

You are perfectly right to take issue with people who hold that belief---and it is a belief.

But the first issue is a different matter.

First you have to separate "theory" of evolution (which deals with how evolution happens) from the question of fact: Does evolution happen?

Then notice that neither of these is a philosophical question.

Evolution either happens or it does not. We can know this from observation. So we observe. And we observe, that in fact evolution does happen.

Pretending that to say "Evolution happens" is a creedal statement rather than a conclusion based on observed phenomena is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.


Now how evolution happens is the arena of the theory of evolution.
There can be, and are, legitimate disagreements among scientists on what causes evolution, how influential various mechanisms are. (selfish gene vs. environmental catastrophe), the most prevalent type of speciation (anagenetic vs. cladistic) etc.

None of these in any way dispute that evolution happens. That evolution happens is a given--an established fact.

Furthermore, each and every proposal stemming from the theory of evolution is also testable and observable.

You choose instead to ignore all the testing and observation that has gone into establishing the fact of evolution and supporting the theory of evolution by adopting a creedal statement of your own: namely

"It is a statement of belief to say that evolution is a fact."

Well, I am sorry. To say creationism is a fact IS a statement of belief, because it has no evidential support. To say ID is a fact IS a statement of belief, because it also has no evidential support.

But to say evolution is a fact is NOT a statement of belief, because it is grounded in an immense body of evidential support for which there is no other rational explanation.

Only if you can show that this evidential support can be fully and better explained by another mechanism can you dispense with evolution. And even then you cannot say that other mechanism is creationism or ID, until you show that one or the other does explain the evidence fully and more successfully than evolution does.

And when you bring up arguements to support the TOE I point to ways that draw questions to the data and so now, I am argueing for C? I am really, really confused as to how this line of reasoning occurs. Can you please explain it to me?

It is quite legitimate to draw questions to the data. But you need to follow them up and find the answers to them. Most of the questions you have raised have already been answered in ways that support evolution and do not support either alternative.

Implying an equality between the theories just because TOE cannot answer all questions put to it, is, in effect, arguing for C/ID.

 

[razzelflabben]

Everything you have said, especially if you agree that I have fairly represented your position in the post you just quoted.

I have not really clarified any opinion I have to any of the three theories, so I should think you would have a hard time representing my position fairly.

By refusing to acknowledge the different quality of the theories when they are tested by observation. Observation shows us that the different theories do not have equivalent evidential support.

I differ with you on this issue especially when considering the vagueness of the original theory. I would agree with you based on different "strains" of each of the theories, our usual example, old earth new earth, but this is only part of some peoples belief on the theory of C not the theory in and of itself. The theory of E has changed considerably itself since I was in school, at least from what is being presented on this thread. I would guess that the change is due to scientific observations (am I correct) C is no different, based on scientific observations, changes to the details of the theory can change, the original theory however has not changed.

Quite correct. Evolution is not my belief system. My belief system is creation. Note “creation” not “creationism”.

Would you please reread the post on scientific method? The method you claim to have no problems with?

An essential component of scientific method is to put theories to the test in order to determine whether or not they are true.

But, you have not shown any observations that disprove the original theory of C or ID, only specific elements of each. This can also be done with the TOE as taught when I was in school, so what is the big deal?

You would have us maintain all three theories in a limbo where no one is allowed to determine which is true. For you, any proponent of any of the three theories who tries to test the theory, tries to determine whether or not it is true, is retreating into a “belief” system. That is utter scientific nonsense.

This is a false representation of what I have said, it is not in testing the theory that a belief system occurs, it is in stepping over the line between theory and fact that makes it become a belief system. I am all for testing the theories but as most if not all the papers I have read (that were recommended to me on this thread), they all say it is theory not fact, not proven, and yet some here continue to claim fact. Why is this, I am claiming that it is this way because some have crossed the line between theory and belief system. If one has crossed the line, they should not be ashamed of that belief, and never deny it, but instead, examine it on all levels.

Theories are meant to be tested against observations. They are meant to be revised when they fail to match observations. They are meant to be discarded if they contradict observations and cannot be amended to fit what we see.

And yet you refuse to allow C and ID to revise their theories based on these same tests of observations? Why is this?

So, yes, it is important scientifically, to discuss which theory is true. In fact, that is the only reason to discuss the theories at all.

Correction, if is important to discuss scientifically which theory fits best the observations and how each theory fits the observations, but theory by definition, cannot be true. Theory by definition is theory, not fact. Observations can be fact. Theories remain theories.

What I am passionate about is acknowledging a fact as fact and not calling it a belief. But you have taken an a priori position that simply to say that evolution is a fact is a statement of belief, rather than a sound and rational conclusion from observed evidence.

Okay, let us test the statement. Are we here? Yes, fact. Were we created (large sense of the word, go back to earlier posts) ?Yes, fact. Did we evolve from a single cell life form? Don't know, not fact. Did we evolve from a larger group of animal? Don't know, not fact. Do animals change today with inbreading to create new species? Yes, fact see animal rings, Does this mean that man evolved from a lesser creature? Don't know, Not fact. Is the theory of evolution proven? No Do most scientists acknowledge this? yes. Do most of the people on this thread aknowledge this? Not at the present time. So what is fact and what is fiction. That will determine what is belief and what is science.

“Evolution is a fact.” That is not a statement of belief. It is a statement that is either true or false, and can be tested to see which it is. And, it has been tested and been shown to be true.

Better give us a definition for evolution then, because the articles I have read, predominately state that scientist acknowledge that the TOE is not fact.

“God used evolution to create diverse life forms.” That is a statement of belief. I believe it to be true, but I cannot test it out to show that it is true. Nor can anyone test it out to show that it is false.

Thus it is theory by nature. There is also the theory that God created the diverse life forms, this theory cannot be tested either, so should be dismiss both, or accept both as theory?

And again you link ideas of a totally different quality. The latter statement is a philosophical statement that even many scientists reject (possibly especially scientists—for I think they are often more aware of the questions science does not answer than science-worshipping lay persons.)

You are perfectly right to take issue with people who hold that belief---and it is a belief.

And this should be the end of the discussion for it is the only point I have to make.

But the first issue is a different matter.

First you have to separate "theory" of evolution (which deals with how evolution happens) from the question of fact: Does evolution happen?

Then notice that neither of these is a philosophical question.

Evolution either happens or it does not. We can know this from observation. So we observe. And we observe, that in fact evolution does happen.

Pretending that to say "Evolution happens" is a creedal statement rather than a conclusion based on observed phenomena is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

Agian, maybe you need to define evolution for us. The TOE is not a proven fact. At least not to hear scientist talk about it. If by evolution, you mean that animals that inter breed change to form a new species, then what you are really saying is not "evolution happens", but that interbreeding causes significant change to a species, thus forming a new species. Then we must also define what you mean when you use the term species. That could be a conclusion based on observed phenomena.

Now how evolution happens is the arena of the theory of evolution.
There can be, and are, legitimate disagreements among scientists on what causes evolution, how influential various mechanisms are. (selfish gene vs. environmental catastrophe), the most prevalent type of speciation (anagenetic vs. cladistic) etc.

Strains of the theory.

None of these in any way dispute that evolution happens. That evolution happens is a given--an established fact.

What do you mean by evolution?

Furthermore, each and every proposal stemming from the theory of evolution is also testable and observable.

Humm we can test the change in organisms over millions of years, how?

You choose instead to ignore all the testing and observation that has gone into establishing the fact of evolution and supporting the theory of evolution by adopting a creedal statement of your own: namely

"It is a statement of belief to say that evolution is a fact."

I think you misunderstand what I am saying if it still isn't clear after reading the above ask and I will try again.

Well, I am sorry. To say creationism is a fact IS a statement of belief, because it has no evidential support. To say ID is a fact IS a statement of belief, because it also has no evidential support.

Then you must be admitting that neither C or ID can be disproven either. For if they cannot be tested, then they cannot be disproven and you need to stop discussing the TOE with any C or ID, for they are totally different subject maters and one cannot compare apples to oranges and still have a logical discussion.

But to say evolution is a fact is NOT a statement of belief, because it is grounded in an immense body of evidential support for which there is no other rational explanation.

Only if you can show that this evidential support can be fully and better explained by another mechanism can you dispense with evolution. And even then you cannot say that other mechanism is creationism or ID, until you show that one or the other does explain the evidence fully and more successfully than evolution does.

This statement then would be the same as saying that the TOE cannot change it's elements to accomidate the data. That contridicts other statements on this thread.

It is quite legitimate to draw questions to the data. But you need to follow them up and find the answers to them. Most of the questions you have raised have already been answered in ways that support evolution and do not support either alternative.

Implying an equality between the theories just because TOE cannot answer all questions put to it, is, in effect, arguing for C/ID.

Actually, all that must be proven is that there are other explainations for the observations that are made.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

we can test the change in organisms over millions of years, how?

Sure we can. The fossil record.

One thing that is too often misunderstood in discussing the scientific method are the terms testable and observable. These terms are not limited to "staring at a beaker and watching" something grow. But it seems that this is the only popular perception of testable.

For something to be testable a prediction has to be made about the evidence. For instance, in evolution, you could predict that in the Cambrian geological layers there will be no bipedal terrestial life forms. The evidence supports this. If anyone ever found a bipedal terrestial life form in those layers, evolution would be falsified and I guarantee you that 99% of the science types on this board would agree that it would be falsified. Heck, if a terrestial life form of ANY kind were found in those layers, there would be quite a maelstrom!

Testing in science is not limited to staring at beakers.

 

[Arikay]

Nope. Most evolutionists, here at least, accept the theory of evolution as a theory. It is a very strong theory, but since a theory can never be proven it is not 100% fact. Most here say that if valid evidence disproved evolution, they would follow the evidence and not evolution.

Yes your right, generalization doesn't help much, except that sometimes generalizations are true, and have evidence behind them.
For example, I can generalize that most creationist groups will ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas, because just like AiG, they state just that on their sites. Many take generalizations too far though.
Creationists aren't all stupid or poorly educated, or liars, etc. The problem is that when you stick around here for long enough, generalizations do form because you start to see patterns.

I apprecieate your answer, it seems honest and sincere, however, I have two questions for you.

1. Do all E boast that the TOE is proven fact?

2. How do you feel when you are thrown into this category?

The bottom line to my objections is that we argue about theories rather than communicate about them. To generalize and steryotype does nothing to enhance communication on either side of the issue. For example, I have a similar experience only opposite than you. The E camp makes claims that they cannot support and are difiant about how right they are. While the C and ID that I know are hummmmm, how does this affect what we believe. What I perpose to you is that if both sides throw away all this steryotyping and start listening to each other, we wouldn't have to have a war over the issue. The conversation has been predominately about E because I was brought here by an E and it is the E who have been responding, I have a similar message for the C and ID. In fact, I have learned much about the TOE from this discussion and though my personal beliefs are stronger because of it, I appreciate the knowledge I have gained. I could have learned so much more if the accusations and preconcieved ideas had not existed in the first place and that is something I regret, because I do love knowledge, but such is life and forums.

 

[JohnR7]

“Evolution is a fact.” That is not a statement of belief. It is a statement that is either true or false, and can be tested to see which it is. And, it has been tested and been shown to be true.

They take a little tiny bit of truth and mix a whole lot of error in with it, then they try to pass off their nonsense as "fact".

 

[gluadys]

I am not sure what your point is, but the observation of animals on a daily basis procreating after their kind, is not scientific evidence how? It is data that can be analized and is observed daily. It provides proof to what the TOC says. How is it not evidence?

Evidence which is in agreement with both theories does not help to establish which one is the better theory. One needs to look for evidence that is not equally supportive of both. Or one needs to ask: “Which theory provides a fuller or more consistent explanation of the observation?”

So you mean to tell me, that the same scientific evidence that matches the theory of C and ID, and "proves" E is invalid because it supports C and ID? Hmmm, how exactly does that work. It is valid evidence if it supports E but not valid if it supports C or ID???

It is not enough for the theory to match the evidence. The point of a theory is to explain the evidence----to show that, given the assumptions of the theory, the evidence could not be anything other than what it is.

My point, however, also understand that elements of C and ID can be sustantiated through scientific methods.

But this is true only of those elements in which it agrees with TOE. Therefore, neither creationism nor ID add anything to the theory of evolution. Once we discard the elements of creationism or ID which cannot be substantiated through scientific method, all that remains is the theory of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

I have not really clarified any opinion I have to any of the three theories, so I should think you would have a hard time representing my position fairly.

No you haven’t. But you have stated fairly directly your opinion that all the theories contain elements of each other, such that there is very little room for disproving one without disproving both the others as well.

That was the position I was referring to. Have I represented that idea fairly?

I differ with you on this issue especially when considering the vagueness of the original theory.

In fact, the vagueness of the “original theory” is the reason it cannot be scientifically substantiated. A good scientific theory makes testable predictions through which one can verify whether or not it is valid.

Now the first part of your original theory IIRC is that all things are created by God.

There is no way this part of the theory can be substantiated by evidence. There is not one iota of physical evidence anywhere in the universe which says “God made me.” Nor does the universe itself make this statement.

So this is not a scientific assertion at all. It is a statement of faith. Therefore, it cannot be part of any theory which claims to be scientific.

That doesn’t mean that either scientists or non-scientists need to abandon their faith to do science. It just means that science is a way to acquire knowledge of nature, not of God, and that it does not deal with matters of faith.


The second part of the “original theory” as you laid it out was:
all creatures reproduce after their kind.

I will point out again that you said “reproduced”; you did not say “created”. Depending on how you define “kind” that can be verified. If you are open to the concept that “cellular organism” is a “kind”, then we can certainly say that all cellular organisms reproduce more cellular organisms.

However, if you insist that God created many different “kinds” independently and that there is a strict barrier between them such that one “kind” (such as a reptile) cannot evolve into another “kind” (such as a bird)—then the second part of the original theory has already been disproved.

So doubtingmerle’s question about zebras is very much to the point. What do you mean by “reproduce after its kind”? What is your definition of a “kind”?

Assuming the “strain” of creationism you personally support is the narrower definition of “kind” we can then say of the original theory that:

statement 1 is a statement of faith and therefore cannot be substantiated by evidence, and
statement 2 has been disproved.

The theory of E has changed considerably itself since I was in school, at least from what is being presented on this thread. I would guess that the change is due to scientific observations (am I correct) C is no different, based on scientific observations, changes to the details of the theory can change, the original theory however has not changed.

So when is creationism going to change its concept of “kinds” to match the evidence? When is it going to stop denying that apes and humans have a common ancestor and are therefore the same "kind"?

But, you have not shown any observations that disprove the original theory of C or ID, only specific elements of each.

I just did. See above.

This can also be done with the TOE as taught when I was in school, so what is the big deal?

In principle, it can be done. But it hasn’t been done.

This is a false representation of what I have said, it is not in testing the theory that a belief system occurs, it is in stepping over the line between theory and fact that makes it become a belief system.

And then you introduce the catch-22 that to state the truth that evolution happens is ipso facto to cross the line between theory and fact.

When a fact is a fact, it is not crossing a line into a belief system to say that it is a fact.

I am all for testing the theories but as most if not all the papers I have read (that were recommended to me on this thread), they all say it is theory not fact, not proven, and yet some here continue to claim fact.

That is because most of the papers you have been reading are dealing with various aspects of the theory of evolution, so they quite correctly say they are. The authors all take the fact of evolution for granted and don’t feel it necessary to say in every paper, “Oh by the way, it is a fact that evolution happens. In this paper we are exploring a theory about how it happens.”

Why is this, I am claiming that it is this way because some have crossed the line between theory and belief system. If one has crossed the line, they should not be ashamed of that belief, and never deny it, but instead, examine it on all levels.

But do you understand that if one has not crossed the line, it is very annoying to be told that what one knows to be a fact is part of a “belief system”?

And yet you refuse to allow C and ID to revise their theories based on these same tests of observations? Why is this?

Hah!... If only they would. See above.

Correction, if is important to discuss scientifically which theory fits best the observations and how each theory fits the observations, but theory by definition, cannot be true.

If the theory is correct, it is true. Theory cannot be fully proved. That does not make a theory untrue. It can be true as far as it goes. Furthermore, theory can be proven false. So we do know when a theory should be discarded. That is why the phlogiston theory of fire, the humour theory of disease and the steady state theory of cosmological expansion are no longer taught. They have all been proven false. As has the theory of creationism.

Theory by definition is theory, not fact.

True, but that does not preclude the existence of a fact which is called by the same name.

For comparison: gravity is a fact. How do we know? We see things fall, and we can measure the gravitational attraction between masses. Gravity is also a theory. The theory of gravity explains why things fall down and how gravitational attraction works.

Similarly evolution is a fact. How do we know? We have observed evolution both in nature and in experiments designed to produce change in species. Evolution is also a theory. The theory of evolution explains what causes these changes, the way the mechanism of change works.

Okay, let us test the statement. Are we here? Yes, fact.

Agreed

Were we created (large sense of the word, go back to earlier posts) ?Yes, fact.

Not fact. Belief.

Did we evolve from a single cell life form? Don't know, not fact.

Yes, known fact.

Did we evolve from a larger group of animal? Don't know, not fact.

As in “mammals” or “primates”? Yes, known fact. This is an example of creatures reproducing more of their kind. Mammals produce mammals, not fish or birds. Primates produce primates, not rodents or chiroptera.

Do animals change today with inbreading to create new species? Yes, fact see animal rings,

Agreed

Does this mean that man evolved from a lesser creature? Don't know, Not fact.

The evolution of humanity from earlier ancestors is a fact. It is up to you, I suppose, to decide whether you wish to label our ancestors a “lesser creature”.

Is the theory of evolution proven? No

Theories cannot be fully proven, but they can be substantially validated from the evidence. Evolution has been substantially validated and is considered a well-established theory for this reason.

And the fact of evolution is a direct observation.

Better give us a definition for evolution then, because the articles I have read, predominately state that scientist acknowledge that the TOE is not fact.

I believe I already gave you two. But I will repeat the briefer one.

Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

Thus it is theory by nature. There is also the theory that God created the diverse life forms, this theory cannot be tested either, so should be dismiss both, or accept both as theory?

No, neither your statement nor mine is theory. They are statements of belief. If they were theories they would make predictions which could be tested against the evidence.

As statements of belief they can be neither dismissed, nor accepted as theory.

Agian, maybe you need to define evolution for us. The TOE is not a proven fact. At least not to hear scientist talk about it. If by evolution, you mean that animals that inter breed change to form a new species, then what you are really saying is not "evolution happens", but that interbreeding causes significant change to a species, thus forming a new species. Then we must also define what you mean when you use the term species. That could be a conclusion based on observed phenomena.

For definition of evolution, see above. For definition of species, at least for the sort of species you are referring to --- the kind that breed sexually, see “biological definition of species.”

Now, let me also point out that generally speaking interbreeding does not produce new species, especially in animals. Interbreeding produces hybrids. But hybrids are not new species. It is very difficult for a breeder to maintain a pure line of hybrids precisely because they are not new species. If allowed to, hybrids will breed freely with other members of the species, and will no longer reproduce to the specifications of the breed.

Some plant species have been known to develop through a two-step process of hybridization + polyploidy (doubling of chromosome number). The doubling of the chromosome number facilitates reproduction and at the same time sets up a barrier against cross-breeding back into the parent species.

In animals the most common means of speciation is the opposite of inter-breeding. It is allopatric speciation—which requires the separation of the species into two groups so that they cannot interbreed.

Humm we can test the change in organisms over millions of years, how?

Yes. Through a comparison of DNA sequences that help to define when novel genes entered the gene pool. Reading DNA is like reading history. In some cases, we can also check our reading of DNA history against fossils preserved in the geological strata.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying if it still isn't clear after reading the above ask and I will try again.

Try again---but please re-read your posts first, because this is exactly what I see you saying. So if I have misinterpreted you, please be very specific as to how.

Then you must be admitting that neither C or ID can be disproven either. For if they cannot be tested, then they cannot be disproven and you need to stop discussing the TOE with any C or ID, for they are totally different subject maters and one cannot compare apples to oranges and still have a logical discussion.

Indeed, belief and science are totally different subject matters. I am quite willing to stop discussing C/ID with any supporter who agrees their position is a matter of faith. It is only if they try to insist their position is grounded in scientific evidence that I have a quarrel with them. Ditto in reverse. Claiming evolution is a belief system when it is actually science will draw me into a discussion, for evolution is NOT a belief system.

This statement then would be the same as saying that the TOE cannot change it's elements to accomidate the data. That contridicts other statements on this thread.

There is no reason for evolution to change when the evidence already agrees with it. It is only new evidence that would require change, and nothing I have said here suggests that the theory of evolution could not accommodate new evidence if necessary.

The point I am making is that the theory of evolution will be abandoned if, and only if, a new theory is presented which explains all the evidence better than evolution does. Or explains it all as well, and also explains more.

That theory will not be creationism or ID, for neither of them begins to explain any of the evidence which evolution explains.

Actually, all that must be proven is that there are other explainations for the observations that are made.

So when are creationism and ID going to produce such explanations? So far, they haven’t done so.

 

[Inside Edge]

gluadys, you are doing an exceptional job at articulating, well, everything. And showing patience, focus, and mental endurance beyond most posters here. You are either gifted with the ability to be naturally succinct, or you're spending a great deal of time carefully wording your responses.

Just wanted to let you know that you're providing good reading for some of us, even if we're not active in the discussion to this point.

 

[Jet Black]

So what you then are saying is that if C ists defined the terms better, (this also then allows for new categories to be developed that would prove C), then they could be classified as a scientific theory and then you would have no problems with the theory? Interesting! I'll work on a definition that should clear things up then. Maybe even a new system of chatagorizing animals. Should be interesting to see how it will be accepted by the scientific community.

feel free to try to come up with a testable and falsifiable theory that explains all the facts.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure we can. The fossil record.

One thing that is too often misunderstood in discussing the scientific method are the terms testable and observable. These terms are not limited to "staring at a beaker and watching" something grow. But it seems that this is the only popular perception of testable.

For something to be testable a prediction has to be made about the evidence. For instance, in evolution, you could predict that in the Cambrian geological layers there will be no bipedal terrestial life forms. The evidence supports this. If anyone ever found a bipedal terrestial life form in those layers, evolution would be falsified and I guarantee you that 99% of the science types on this board would agree that it would be falsified. Heck, if a terrestial life form of ANY kind were found in those layers, there would be quite a maelstrom!

Testing in science is not limited to staring at beakers.

Good observation and discription of the terms, however, we are still left with less than proof. We have evidence that would suggest, we have evidence that makes the TOE possible, but we do not have proof or overwhelming evidence, because there are other possibilities. People here are misunderstanding my point. (at least it would seem so) I have no problem with the possibility that the TOE to be true, I have no problem with the possibility that the TOC is true, heck, I have no problem with another theory not yet purposed be true. I do have a problem with people who claim theory to be fact.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nope. Most evolutionists, here at least, accept the theory of evolution as a theory. It is a very strong theory, but since a theory can never be proven it is not 100% fact. Most here say that if valid evidence disproved evolution, they would follow the evidence and not evolution.

Yes your right, generalization doesn't help much, except that sometimes generalizations are true, and have evidence behind them.
For example, I can generalize that most creationist groups will ignore any evidence that contradicts their preconcieved ideas, because just like AiG, they state just that on their sites. Many take generalizations too far though.
Creationists aren't all stupid or poorly educated, or liars, etc. The problem is that when you stick around here for long enough, generalizations do form because you start to see patterns.

I agree whole heartedly, except that the more I talk to E the more I hear them assert that the TOE is fact. I really think this is the reason that people cannot seem to sit down and discussion the issue rationally, because both camps make assumptions that should not be made. The result of which is that neither side hears what is being said, only assumes what is being said. For example, I come here and talk about the assumptions we make. Many here take that to mean that I am a C even after I say that I lean towards ID. In fact, I have very few opinions of this issue, so few that I do not really fit into any of the theory groups. But the E here maintain that because I present questions to their "evidence" I am a C. How do we make that jump without the steryotypes and assumptions that we already know what someone believes.

My whole arguement stems from the idea that we do not need to argue about the theories, but rather it is possible if we set aside our assumptions, to have an actual discussion, both sides learning something they didn't know and both side applying that new knowledge to what they believe about the theories. Why does that create such an emotional debate unless our ideas are based on the emotions of belief system against belief system?

 

[razzelflabben]

They take a little tiny bit of truth and mix a whole lot of error in with it, then they try to pass off their nonsense as "fact".

This is the stereotyping type arguements that both sides use to create an atmosphere of anger and belief system vs. belief system that I object too. Both sides assuming what the other is saying and neither side listening to what is being said.

 

[Jet Black]

I do have a problem with people who claim theory to be fact.

how about people who claim that a falsified theory is possible?

 

[Sanguine]

My whole arguement stems from the idea that we do not need to argue about the theories, but rather it is possible if we set aside our assumptions, to have an actual discussion, both sides learning something they didn't know and both side applying that new knowledge to what they believe about the theories. Why does that create such an emotional debate unless our ideas are based on the emotions of belief system against belief system?

Because their hypothesis is essentially "God did it", and it's a fairly fruitless enterprise (not to mention frustrating) to try and show them how they think it happend isn't the case unless God is a cosmic prankster. From what I've seen on these boards, the best we can hope for is that some genuinely un/ill informed people walk away with a better understanding of what evolution is and is not. Hopefull this makes them immune to the likes of Kent Hovind and co.

 

[razzelflabben]

Evidence which is in agreement with both theories does not help to establish which one is the better theory. One needs to look for evidence that is not equally supportive of both. Or one needs to ask: “Which theory provides a fuller or more consistent explanation of the observation?”

Why do we have to force the issue of which is the better theory? If the data and observations do not clearly define which theory is more reliable, why must be determine which is more reliable? This logic totally stumps me.

It is not enough for the theory to match the evidence. The point of a theory is to explain the evidence----to show that, given the assumptions of the theory, the evidence could not be anything other than what it is.

And yet, for each of the theories we discussed here, and each of the papers I read that were recommended to me, I see that the evidence does not fully explain all aspects of any of the theories. It is more than possible to twist the observations to fit into any of the theories. So your point is that E twist the observations to fit into their theory better than the C do?

But this is true only of those elements in which it agrees with TOE. Therefore, neither creationism nor ID add anything to the theory of evolution. Once we discard the elements of creationism or ID which cannot be substantiated through scientific method, all that remains is the theory of evolution.

If there are differences in the theories, then they certainly add somthing to the TOE especially is similarities occur. In fact, it is very narrow minded to assume that C or ID cannot add anything to our understanding of this world.