Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ondoher]

evolution on a small scale does exsist. It is not a new form just a form of the origanal that has less info then the first. A new life such as reproduction does? evolution occurs yes, in asense yes but that different forms of each kingdom changed to another such as in speciation or ring species. a dog to a dingo or a leapord or tiger or a hiena. or in reverse. God created like Kinds with a vast capability to create many like many varieties of this like kind. sort of like breeding dogs. a vast variety but still a dog. But not a sigulare mammal creating all of the mammals. this isnt going to happen. another is the hawk family or the duck family. a bunny family, a snake family, a whale family, a monkey family. these all created a vast variety within their kind.

There is more genetic variability between the members of the "monkey family" than between humans and other apes. Does that mean that you accept that humans and other apes share common ancestry?

 

[william jay schroeder]

In all your responces you have still yet to prove evolution on the grand scale only small ones with which you use to persume the large scale. the thing is what you use can not be scientifically test to be true or untrue. a theory must be tested true and tested to be untrue to become a fact which is why evolution is still very much and always will be a theory. Their is no test out there that makes evolution a fact. has any thing you presented shown a organism becoming a completly different organism with which you claim evolution does on the grand scale.

 

[caravelair]

In all your responces you have still yet to prove evolution on the grand scale only small ones with which you use to persume the large scale. the thing is what you use can not be scientifically test to be true or untrue. a theory must be tested true and tested to be untrue to become a fact which is why evolution is still very much and always will be a theory. Their is no test out there that makes evolution a fact. has any thing you presented shown a organism becoming a completly different organism with which you claim evolution does on the grand scale.

all of the evidences on this page test common descent with predictions and confirmation of those predictions:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Vance]

WJS:

This shows your knowledge of basic science is lacking. Theories never become facts. Theories are explanations of facts, of data. No theory can every be "proven", not even the many theories you ascribe to. A theory is determined to be valid to the extent that it fits the data, adequately explains the data and is able to predict consequences. Evolution does all of these with flying colors.

But even the strongest proponent of evolution will hold to the theory as a matter of degree of certitude, never 100%. Maybe 99%, but never 100%. Same with the theory of relativity, germ theory, theories of gravitation, etc, etc.

Maybe I should bump my "the fact and theory of evolution" thread. It really should be a sticky, I believe since this is one area of basic science that many people just don't get.

 

[Vance]

Rather than bump an old thread, I will just post the OP here for the benefit of WJS:

Here is a good discussion of this topic:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

​

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

​

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

​

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

​

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

​

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

​

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled. There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

​

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

[from www.talkorigins.org]

 

[william jay schroeder]

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, ive heard it all before as your evolutionist say over and over the mechanism is not there. if its not there it cant start so im right in what i say you just cant say it point blank. evolution on the small scale is true, we all no and see this and dont deny it at all. evolution on the grand scale is not seen or there. speciation doesnt show this, bacteria changeing or evolving or what ever is still a bacteria, your fruit flies are still fruit flies. Kinds create a vast aray of different species of the same kind. this is all you have proven. no seriouse scientific research by creationist is ever looked at in the proffesional ranks because it is gaurded by the extreme evolutionist who refuse to allow it consideration. if a research is done and it is mentioned that its a creationist it is immediatly discarded or ignored. If it was so abvious that were ignorent they would alow us to publish in their scientific journels just to prove our ignorance and prove what they say of creationist.

 

[Vance]

The reason they are not published in scientific journals is very simple: they do not have supportable propositions. If any scientist who happened to be a creationist did some actual scientific research and came up with a scientifically supportable proposition, they would have no problem.

As for evidence for evolution on the large scale, you seem to be forgetting the fossil record, the nested heirarchies and the genetic data, all of which support the theory that existing species had common ancestors. So, to say there is NO evidence is just a falsehood (I am too polite to call it a lie). You might not accept the evidence, or believe the evidence, but then you must show how the evidence fails to support the conclusion. But you can't just say that there is no evidence at all without doing that.

 

[Ondoher]

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla,

That is a poor sumation of the scientific method.

ive heard it all before as your evolutionist say over and over the mechanism is not there.

Common ancestry can be demonstrated as the best explanation for the data absent any mechansism to explain it. This is similar to understanding a great deal about gravity lacking a good mechanism for it. That said, the modern synthesis is an adequate set of mechanisms.

if its not there it cant start so im right in what i say you just cant say it point blank.

The origin of life does not effect the veracity of evolution any more than the origin of matter effects the veracity of chemistry.

evolution on the small scale is true, we all no and see this and dont deny it at all. evolution on the grand scale is not seen or there.

We can infer that evolution has happened in the past due to the overwhemling evidence for common ancestry. The mechanisms of the modern systhesis can be seen to have been operational in the past due to analysis of such things as gene families.

speciation doesnt show this, bacteria changeing or evolving or what ever is still a bacteria, your fruit flies are still fruit flies. Kinds create a vast aray of different species of the same kind. this is all you have proven.

Kind is an ambiguous word with no useful meaning. What the evidence shows is that life shares a common family tree. For instance, dogs and bears share a recent common ancestor, so do humans and chimpanzees. Go back far enough and all mammals have a common ancestor. Go back further and so do all tetrapods, all vertebrates, all metazoans, etc.

no seriouse scientific research by creationist is ever looked at in the proffesional ranks because it is gaurded by the extreme evolutionist who refuse to allow it consideration. if a research is done and it is mentioned that its a creationist it is immediatly discarded or ignored. If it was so abvious that were ignorent they would alow us to publish in their scientific journels just to prove our ignorance and prove what they say of creationist.

Actually, there is no serious scientific research by creationists. Major journals report that hardly anything is even submitted:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

​

You may have to just accept that the reason creationists are not published is because they are unable to produce anything that can pass muster with peer review.

 

[cerad]

william jay schroeder,
I know it's a bit off topic but what's your native language? Just curious.

 

[william jay schroeder]

william jay schroeder,
I know it's a bit off topic but what's your native language? Just curious.

usa ohioian.

 

[william jay schroeder]

That is a poor sumation of the scientific method.

Common ancestry can be demonstrated as the best explanation for the data absent any mechansism to explain it. This is similar to understanding a great deal about gravity lacking a good mechanism for it. That said, the modern synthesis is an adequate set of mechanisms.

The origin of life does not effect the veracity of evolution any more than the origin of matter effects the veracity of chemistry.

We can infer that evolution has happened in the past due to the overwhemling evidence for common ancestry. The mechanisms of the modern systhesis can be seen to have been operational in the past due to analysis of such things as gene families.

Kind is an ambiguous word with no useful meaning. What the evidence shows is that life shares a common family tree. For instance, dogs and bears share a recent common ancestor, so do humans and chimpanzees. Go back far enough and all mammals have a common ancestor. Go back further and so do all tetrapods, all vertebrates, all metazoans, etc.



Actually, there is no serious scientific research by creationists. Major journals report that hardly anything is even submitted:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

​

You may have to just accept that the reason creationists are not published is because they are unable to produce anything that can pass muster with peer review.

what are the certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). because here they are not aknowledged. and ancestor isnt ambigiuos. I think you mean all animals share the same chemical make up not ancestor because thats not proven. and what is Twin nested hiarches?

 

[Ondoher]

what are the certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). because here they are not aknowledged.

We have specifics of mechanism and specifics of phylogeny that are always being debated. Such as the out of africa hypothesis vs. multi-regionalism. None of these arguments propose a problem for evolution in general, it is just a focus on details.

and ancestor isnt ambigiuos.

That's right, it isn't.

I think you mean all animals share the same chemical make up not ancestor because thats not proven.

No, I meant ancestor. Had I meant chemical makeup, then I'd have said that.

and what is Twin nested hiarches?

This is interesting, in one sentence you proclaim there is no support for common ancestry, and in the next you ask what the twin nested hierarchies is. The twin nested hierarchies is just one of the supporting data points for common ancestry. Well, in actuallity, it is a whole mess of supporting data points.

If common ancestry is true, then all life is related in a single family tree, called a phylogeny. If that true, and there really is a single phylogeny, then regardless of the type of traits we use to infer this family tree, whether anatomical or genetic, we should build trees that are statistically identical.

And we do, this is called the twin nested hierarchies (because a tree is really a nested hierarchy). As I said, it is really many nested hierarchies, because regardless of the data used to draw trees, be they different genes, karyotypes, genetic codes, proteins, or anatomical characters, they produce highly consistent trees, every time. And this is just one category of data supporting common ancestry. There is much more.

You really need to start reading the literature that supports evolution.

 

[MatthewM]

C

 

[Vance]

I really does seem odd that people would claim that evolution is false, is unsupported, and is full of holes, but yet know almost nothing about what it really says or what evidence supports it.

As amazing as it may sound, I really wonder whether some Creationists get most, if not all, of their beliefs about evolution from creationist sources. Of course, getting your information primarily from such a source (one admittedly opposed the theory, and therefore admittedly biased) and then actually claiming evolution is false based on such information alone would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme, so I hesitate to make such a dramatic claim against any Creationist here.

After all, making a conclusory assertion about ANY subject is to basically claim that you have studied the matter thoroughly and from both sides of the debate, as objectively as humanly possible. To state conclusions that something is true or not true, supported or not supported, etc, without having madesuch a thorough investigation is basically making a false claim, then. A lie.

And, since WJS has made such conclusory statements about evolution many times, and I believe he can't be a liar (being a Christian and all), I assume he is just joshing us about not knowing what twin nested hierarchies are (since anyone who had done the prequisite investigation would know).

 

[DJ_Ghost]

and what is Twin nested hiarches?

I would have thought that if you are going to argue so vehemently against the theory of evolution you should at least do us the curtsey of learning enough about the theory of evolution to know some of the important strings of evidence on which the theory stands.

How can one honestly debate against a position without having learned about it? How can one honestly say that a theory is not well founded on evidence and then admit they have not heard about some of the evidence upon which it is based?

Ghost

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I really does seem odd that people would claim that evolution is false, is unsupported, and is full of holes, but yet know almost nothing about what it really says or what evidence supports it.

As amazing as it may sound, I really wonder whether some Creationists get most, if not all, of their beliefs about evolution from creationist sources. Of course, getting your information primarily from such a source (one admittedly opposed the theory, and therefore admittedly biased) and then actually claiming evolution is false based on such information alone would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme...

No, just extremely naive.

Creationists also get their information from TV and newspapers and low level (K-12 up to college intro) textbooks.

"The more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know."
could be rewritten as
"The less you know, the more comprehensive you believe your knowledge to be."

 

[Jet Black]

and what is Twin nested hiarches?

lots of other people are focussing on this, and rightly so. The fact that you do not even know this indicates that you do not know much, if anything really, about the subject that you argue so vehemently against. It's like me trying to argue against Christianity and not knowing what the Trinity is, or who Mary or Matthew were.

You claim that there is no evidence, when you don't even know the most basic things about the subject.

why do you do that?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

"The more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know."
could be rewritten as
"The less you know, the more comprehensive you believe your knowledge to be."

Ah how true.

Ghost

 

[Jet Black]

"The more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know."
could be rewritten as
"The less you know, the more comprehensive you believe your knowledge to be."

if you want a clever word, the second statement is a corollary to the first

 

[UniversalAxis]

william jay schroeder[/font]]
and what is Twin nested hiarches?

Come on... I mean... Come on...