Evolution is a FACT!!!!

[philadiddle]

The word "evolution" can be used in 2 way, and there should really be 2 different words to avoid the confusion. Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on how you use the word.

First I must clarify what a theory is. Many ppl think that theory is somewhat less then a fact, that once a theory is proven it becomes a fact. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Facts are observable things around us, and a theory is how we explain those things. Like the fact that gravity exists, that's an observable fact. But what causes it? The theory of relativity is the best explanation thus far for gravity. A theory can be even more important then the fact. We know that we are affected by gravity (fact), but it's understanding how and why (theory) that really helps us learn.

In reguards to evolution, it is a fact that life on earth has evolved. As we go deeper and deeper into the layers of strata within the earth, we see changes in the life forms that existed. Entirely new sets of ecosystems existed in the past. It is a fact that we evolved.

The theory of evolution is how we try to explain that fact. Darwin had the idea of phyletic gradualism. (Although it may have been he expected more our current models, but that's another topic). Currently our understanding of evolution leads us to believe in punctuated equilibrium. All the mechanisms for this to have happened are observed in nature today, and they happen even faster then the fossil record requires.

I saw some threads about the use of the word "theory" so I hope this clears some things up.

 

[gluadys]

The word "evolution" can be used in 2 way, and there should really be 2 different words to avoid the confusion. Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on how you use the word.

Generally good post. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. However, I have come to the conclusion that we must also speak of a third aspect of evolution, and that is the history of evolutionary change.

Many creationists do not have a problem with the fact that species change. Some even understand that new species emerge from this process of change. The rapid diversification of "kinds" into the species we know today, after the flood requires evolution in hyper-drive. So there is not really a problem with the fact of evolution and those who use the "It's just a theory" argument are out-of-date even with current creationist thinking.

Since the theory of evolution is mostly about how species change occurs via genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. most creationists do not really have a problem with that either.

The sticking point appears to be the history of evolution. For it is the history of evolution (both theoretical and evidential) that leads to the conclusion of a single phylogeny embracing all of life on earth and descent from a universal common ancestor. Creationists tend to refer to this as "macro-evolution".

So I think we who defend evolution need to do a better job of showing the evidence for a single phylogeny, of explaining in more detail the significance of the nested hierarchy and why it cannot be explained by "common design", and why "macro-evolution" is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of "micro-evolution".

The theory of evolution is how we try to explain that fact. Darwin had the idea of phyletic gradualism. (Although it may have been he expected more our current models, but that's another topic). Currently our understanding of evolution leads us to believe in punctuated equilibrium. All the mechanisms for this to have happened are observed in nature today, and they happen even faster then the fossil record requires.

A word of caution about opposing punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism. It is not a case of either-or, but of both-and. Both processes are found in nature and punctuated equilibrium actually depends on phyletic change.

As Gould explains, evolutionary changes, even those associated with punctuated equilibrium, are small changes--a series of baby steps, not single massive changes that transform a species in one generation.

But those baby steps can be taken at a running pace as well as at a slow stroll through time. He and Eldridge both stress that punctuated equilibrium is about the rate at which evolution can occur, not a proposal for a different mechanism of evolution. And in fact, phyletic change does sometimes happen slowly as well as rapidly. Not every lineage shows punctuated equilibrium. Some show classical phyletic gradualism.

 

[Floodnut]

Creation is a fact, Evolution is a lie, based on lies and misinformation.

 

[Jase]

Creation is a fact, Evolution is a lie, based on lies and misinformation.

And of course we all know that you just have loads of information to back this up other than your incorrect interpretation of an ancient text...

Evolution is a fact floodnut. The global flood is the lie you are clinging to.

 

[Dannager]

Creation is a fact, Evolution is a lie, based on lies and misinformation.

It heartens me that, were creationists to attempt to write a more robust, supported statement than the above, they would not be able to do so.

 

[lucaspa]

The word "evolution" can be used in 2 way, and there should really be 2 different words to avoid the confusion. Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on how you use the word.

First I must clarify what a theory is. Many ppl think that theory is somewhat less then a fact, that once a theory is proven it becomes a fact. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Facts are observable things around us, and a theory is how we explain those things.

Generally a good post. And a good restatement of Gould's arguments about evolution being a "fact" and a "theory".

Hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe. As you said, hypotheses/theories are often viewed as "explaining facts". In reality, facts are really used to test the truth or falsity of hypotheses/theories.

What happens in science is that, when a theory is well supported, we accept it as (provisionally) true and treat it like a "fact".

For instance, the statement "the earth is round" is a theory. But it is such a well-supported theory that we accept it (provisionally) as true and like a fact.

William Whewell discussed this in detail. Accepted theories become "facts" in other theories. For instance, the theory of the shape of the earth becomes a "fact" in the hypotheses of plotting courses for airplanes and ships. That the planes and ships arrive where and when calculated becomes more support for the theory.

Whewell's example was that Kepler's Laws (theories) were "facts" in Newton's theory of gravity.

In reguards to evolution, it is a fact that life on earth has evolved.

In regards to evolution, Darwin had 5 theories wrapped up under "evolution". What you are stating as "fact" are two of those theories:

1. Common ancestry.
2. Non-constancy of species.

I saw some threads about the use of the word "theory" so I hope this clears some things up.

Try this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t125211

 

[lucaspa]

As Gluadys pointed out, phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are NOT opposed. Phyletic gradualism holds that entire LARGE populations transformed to new species over generations.

PE says that most speciation happened by allopatric speciation. That is, small populations are geographically isolated and, facing different environments, it is the small population that transforms over generations. But note that phyletic gradualism happens within the small population -- the entire population transforms.

 

[lucaspa]

Creation is a fact, Evolution is a lie, based on lies and misinformation.

So many errors crammed into one sentence.

Creation is a belief.

Creationism is the lie, based on lies and misinformation.

Evolution is not opposed to creation. For Christians, evolution is simply how God created.

 

[Floodnut]

And of course we all know that you just have loads of information to back this up other than your incorrect interpretation of an ancient text...

Evolution is a fact floodnut. The global flood is the lie you are clinging to.

interesting. Here we are in the "CHRISTIAN" forum and you call the Scriptures a lie. Hmmm. People ask, "What is the problem with evolution?" THERE you have it.

 

[Mallon]

interesting. Here we are in the "CHRISTIAN" forum and you call the Scriptures a lie. Hmmm. People ask, "What is the problem with evolution?" THERE you have it.

If you've got nothing constructive or helpful to say, Floodnut, you might find yourself more at home in the anti-evolution subforum. Evolutionary creationists are here to stay, and crying "Evilution is from the devil!!!1" isn't going to convince anyone.

 

[Deamiter]

interesting. Here we are in the "CHRISTIAN" forum and you call the Scriptures a lie. Hmmm. People ask, "What is the problem with evolution?" THERE you have it.

Wow, again you equate your interpretation of scripture with scripture itself! I call your interpretation of scripture a lie just as I call the Mormon and Jehovah's Witness' interpretation of scripture a lie. Incidentally that says nothing at all about my position of the truth value of scripture itself.

 

[Jase]

interesting. Here we are in the "CHRISTIAN" forum and you call the Scriptures a lie. Hmmm. People ask, "What is the problem with evolution?" THERE you have it.

I never said scripture is a lie, I said your interpretation of it is a lie.

 

[Dannager]

interesting. Here we are in the "CHRISTIAN" forum and you call the Scriptures a lie. Hmmm. People ask, "What is the problem with evolution?" THERE you have it.

The above post is the problem with creationism. Well, one of the problems with creationism.

Creationists: If you actually read the posts you respond to, you'll earn respect! If you do nothing but build straw men for you to enjoy being angry at, you won't earn respect!

 

[philadiddle]

A word of caution about opposing punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism. It is not a case of either-or, but of both-and. Both processes are found in nature and punctuated equilibrium actually depends on phyletic change.

I didn't mean to word them as if they opposed although looking back that is what it sounds like. I mainly made this post to hear feedback from ppl who have studied the subject more so that i could learn and so that i can word these kind of statements better in the future. So thanks gluadys and lucaspa for your input.

floodnut, are u a troll?

 

[jeffweeder]

If Evolution were true wouldnt we have an enormous amount of transitionary fossils?
Your missing something arent you?

"Houston we have a problem"

 

[grimbly]

If Evolution were true wouldnt we have an enormous amount of transitionary fossils?
Your missing something arent you?

"Houston we have a problem"

Nope, just like the geological evidence for an ancient earth, we have more transitional fossils than you could look at in your life time. In fact you could spend all your waking hours reading paleontology journals and hardly make a dent in the torrent of information (coming in daily) that supports evolution. Our problem is not a lack of data, it's not enough time or people to fully analyze all that we've got. If you just chose one division, like invertebrate paleontology, you could not read all the literature in your lifetime. So no Jeff, there's no problems at Houston. Somebody's been telling you Porkies.

 

[jeffweeder]

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/trans_forms.htm

 

[grimbly]

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/trans_forms.htm

Instead of quote mines, why not look at some actual data.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

 

[jeffweeder]

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky[16][Lit heavens ], and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky[17][Lit heavens ], and to every beast of the field,

 

[keyarch]

Nope, just like the geological evidence for an ancient earth, we have more transitional fossils than you could look at in your life time. In fact you could spend all your waking hours reading paleontology journals and hardly make a dent in the torrent of information (coming in daily) that supports evolution. Our problem is not a lack of data, it's not enough time or people to fully analyze all that we've got. If you just chose one division, like invertebrate paleontology, you could not read all the literature in your lifetime. So no Jeff, there's no problems at Houston. Somebody's been telling you Porkies.

I have a serious question with regard to all this evidence you say is in support of transitional fossils. I don't go to a university or subscribe to the paleontology journals. All I have is an internet search. I'm usually pretty good about finding information there.

When I search for images (not verbiage or drawings) of "transitional fossils" I get some charts of human skulls or some shells, both of which seemed to be arranged in a bias way or some drawings of what someone might theorize about it. But to be honest, I don't see anything that would convince me in even the slightest way. If there are more "than you could look at in your life time", why aren't more examples put forth where the layperson can have access to them?

Again, I'm serious here. I would like to see them. Why does it seem like they are being protected? Are the books also full of these images? If so, which books specifically so that I can get a copy? Why can't a website be devoted to all these images and examples and FACTS about macro-evolution (one species to another) and then when one of us asks for the evidence we could be directed to that site? This seems simple enough. Maybe there already is one. I'm really not interested in the sites that just have the propaganda; I just want to investigate the real factual data.