Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

First, just because God could instantly create things does not mean he did it on all things. Just like how we wrote code, we write something, and later find we can do more, and deprecated the old code and created new code.

Second, I have to thank some other member of the form on this one. The article you quoted is from 1967, and more recent research shows exact opposite information as you stated.
Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University

The article is from 2014, in it Peter Wilf, a paleobotanist and professor of geoscience, plainly states: "....and we found the opposite, that the fossils are much older than the clock dates. In this case, we can definitely say that the clocks are wrong. The fossils prove it"

Yes, however you could write new code at any time. You could write it now, you could write it later. You could write it all at once, you could write it 33% at a time.

But the temporal relation between mutations and fossils align, as seen in my example, giving a perceived relationship between mutations and morphology, which makes sense because we know anatomy is a product of DNA and its mutational changes.

"The researchers are not certain why there is strong directional bias in these molecular clock dates. They suggest that some molecular clock studies omitted known fossils, which would have made the dates older. They also suggest that the conventions for placing fossils on the tree of life as calibrations are too conservative and seem to bias molecular estimates significantly toward younger dates."

"First, several clock studies ignored previously known fossils that, if used as calibrations, would probably have made several estimates older (Table 1). These oversights mostly affected cycads and araucarians. Second, the convention of placing calibrations at stem nodes, unless they are explicitly resolved into a crown group, seems to cause significant directional bias. This procedure is methodologically conservative, but it forces crown nodes to be younger than the calibration fossil, whose real evolutionary position was either in the crown or along its subtending branch, not at a stem node."

Here is a passage from your article, suggesting potential reasons for the discrepancy. Science involves tests, trials, it is a process that involves gaining and learning. So naturally there will be failed tests. There will be failures in methodology used to make predictions as well. However, as seen above, there are also successful tests and successful predictions made by successful procedures and methods.

The article also states that errors are potentially caused by faulty placement of calibration nodes, that are based on the fossil succession. However, the article I listed, did not use the fossil succession in predicting the location of the human-ape split, so the two examples aren't even analogous as my example didnt reference the fossil succession in its methods used to derive the conclusion.

Further,

"If it is coming down to the point where paleontologists and microbiologists are going back and forth and are both making strong arguments through various independent lines of research, which are aligning with one another within 1 million years (out of an earth history of 4.56 billion years)...this is strongly suggestive of the fossil succession being a product of accumulated mutations.

Alternatively, your consideration of this idea that God instantaneously created and destroyed life over billions of years, really does't have a mechanism to allow for such predictions. By your consideration, these fossils could be 10 million or 30 million or 50 million or 100 million or 200 million etc. years away from one another. If God instantaneously created and destroyed over and over and over again, fossils could exist anywhere at any time."

One side of the coin proposes that morphology in the fossil succession is a product of mutations, which is understandable because DNA changes, and we can see mutations accumulate and derive timescales (in some cases accurate timescales which result in accurate predictions) from them. In some cases, predictions are even made without the fossil succession (unlike in the article you sourced).

The other side of the coin, proposes that God created and destroyed life over and over and over and over again countless, countless times. Nothing in scripture proposes this. Nobody sees this occurring today either, but we do see mutations accumulating, and life changing. I could even quote that e. coli report in that genotypic and phenotypic mutations and changes occurred in just 29 years.

So what is more plausible? The side of the coin that has a plausible explanation (mutations result in phenotypic change over time), and makes predictions that at least sometimes are correct depending on the method used.

Or the side of the coin that, has no observations, has no mechanical explanation, has no scriptural backing, and has no logical backing (why would God keep remaking things, was he unsatisfied with what he first made? What about when God reverses his trend and remakes something that was already made? Yet he said "and it was good, and very good"). Also, there is nothing known to man that would ever stop mutations from occurring or accumulating.

This is a no brainer. Hands down, from a scientific perspective, evolution is far more credible than the alternative you are proposing.

Further, you even have biogeographical distributions, Indian elephants are in India, African elephants are in africa. Flightless birds are in Australia. God could hypothetically create any animal anywhere at any time. Yet, geography seems to dictate what lives where. Which through evolution makes sense, if India was once a part of Africa, and if Australia is isolated from the rest of the world. But for what reason would God create and destroy countless species of elephants over and over and over again, but just so happen to keep them regionally defined? And why keep destroying and recreating, to keep them environmentally defined? Evolution by common descent does both of these on its own.

 

[Job 33:6]

To double back on the plant article, to try to summarize,

You cant quote an article that uses alternative methods and procedures, to say that because research group A used methods B and C, then research performed by group D was wrong, even though they used Methods E and F.

This doesnt make any sense^ as varying methods will produce varying results, and you cant say that because one method produced a false result, that all methods produce false results (simply on the basis that they are in the same field of research).

So the response regarding plant research is an insufficient rebuttal.

I digress...

If however, someone used the same methods, and derived a different result, for example, lets say someone looked at accumulated changes in proteins (such as those used by Sarich and Wilson) and identified a common ancestor between orangutans and gorills that was 200 million years old, that would be an adequate rebuttal. However, such research, as far as I am aware, is non existent.

 

[dcalling]

Yes, however you could write new code at any time. You could write it now, you could write it later. You could write it all at once, you could write it 33% at a time.

But the temporal relation between mutations and fossils align, as seen in my example, giving a perceived relationship between mutations and morphology, which makes sense because we know anatomy is a product of DNA and its mutational changes.

"The researchers are not certain why there is strong directional bias in these molecular clock dates. They suggest that some molecular clock studies omitted known fossils, which would have made the dates older. They also suggest that the conventions for placing fossils on the tree of life as calibrations are too conservative and seem to bias molecular estimates significantly toward younger dates."

"First, several clock studies ignored previously known fossils that, if used as calibrations, would probably have made several estimates older (Table 1). These oversights mostly affected cycads and araucarians. Second, the convention of placing calibrations at stem nodes, unless they are explicitly resolved into a crown group, seems to cause significant directional bias. This procedure is methodologically conservative, but it forces crown nodes to be younger than the calibration fossil, whose real evolutionary position was either in the crown or along its subtending branch, not at a stem node."

Here is a passage from your article, suggesting potential reasons for the discrepancy. Science involves tests, trials, it is a process that involves gaining and learning. So naturally there will be failed tests. There will be failures in methodology used to make predictions as well. However, as seen above, there are also successful tests and successful predictions made by successful procedures and methods.

The article also states that errors are potentially caused by faulty placement of calibration nodes, that are based on the fossil succession. However, the article I listed, did not use the fossil succession in predicting the location of the human-ape split, so the two examples aren't even analogous as my example didnt reference the fossil succession in its methods used to derive the conclusion.

Further,

"If it is coming down to the point where paleontologists and microbiologists are going back and forth and are both making strong arguments through various independent lines of research, which are aligning with one another within 1 million years (out of an earth history of 4.56 billion years)...this is strongly suggestive of the fossil succession being a product of accumulated mutations.

Alternatively, your consideration of this idea that God instantaneously created and destroyed life over billions of years, really does't have a mechanism to allow for such predictions. By your consideration, these fossils could be 10 million or 30 million or 50 million or 100 million or 200 million etc. years away from one another. If God instantaneously created and destroyed over and over and over again, fossils could exist anywhere at any time."

One side of the coin proposes that morphology in the fossil succession is a product of mutations, which is understandable because DNA changes, and we can see mutations accumulate and derive timescales (in some cases accurate timescales which result in accurate predictions) from them. In some cases, predictions are even made without the fossil succession (unlike in the article you sourced).

The other side of the coin, proposes that God created and destroyed life over and over and over and over again countless, countless times. Nothing in scripture proposes this. Nobody sees this occurring today either, but we do see mutations accumulating, and life changing. I could even quote that e. coli report in that genotypic and phenotypic mutations and changes occurred in just 29 years.

So what is more plausible? The side of the coin that has a plausible explanation (mutations result in phenotypic change over time), and makes predictions that at least sometimes are correct depending on the method used.

Or the side of the coin that, has no observations, has no mechanical explanation, has no scriptural backing, and has no logical backing (why would God keep remaking things, was he unsatisfied with what he first made? What about when God reverses his trend and remakes something that was already made? Yet he said "and it was good, and very good"). Also, there is nothing known to man that would ever stop mutations from occurring or accumulating.

This is a no brainer. Hands down, from a scientific perspective, evolution is far more credible than the alternative you are proposing.

Further, you even have biogeographical distributions, Indian elephants are in India, African elephants are in africa. Flightless birds are in Australia. God could hypothetically create any animal anywhere at any time. Yet, geography seems to dictate what lives where. Which through evolution makes sense, if India was once a part of Africa, and if Australia is isolated from the rest of the world. But for what reason would God create and destroy countless species of elephants over and over and over again, but just so happen to keep them regionally defined? And why keep destroying and recreating, to keep them environmentally defined? Evolution by common descent does both of these on its own.

Just remember, even with N number of possible results does not prove something, but 1 negative test will definitely disprove something.

 

[dcalling]

To double back on the plant article, to try to summarize,

You cant quote an article that uses alternative methods and procedures, to say that because research group A used methods B and C, then research performed by group D was wrong, even though they used Methods E and F.

This doesnt make any sense^ as varying methods will produce varying results, and you cant say that because one method produced a false result, that all methods produce false results (simply on the basis that they are in the same field of research).

So the response regarding plant research is an insufficient rebuttal.

I digress...

If however, someone used the same methods, and derived a different result, for example, lets say someone looked at accumulated changes in proteins (such as those used by Sarich and Wilson) and identified a common ancestor between orangutans and gorills that was 200 million years old, that would be an adequate rebuttal. However, such research, as far as I am aware, is non existent.

I am not saying the article is correct, I am only quote it to show you there are too many holes in molecular clock hypothesis.

I remember you said you are a scientist, as a scientist it is your job to question, not to blindly believe. So now you have contrary examples, and none have a clear shot case, so it should be a time to gathering evidences instead of making conclusions.

 

[Job 33:6]

All I can say is, I hope you read every word of those lasts posts. Best of luck in your searches.

 

[dcalling]

All I can say is, I hope you read every word of those lasts posts. Best of luck in your searches.

I am simply showing you that recent research contradict your linked research from 1967.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am simply showing you that recent research contradict your linked research from 1967.

You sourced research that used alternative methods. Which doesn't mean anything but what that particular methodology concluded.

Do you understand why your response is insufficient to rebuke my comments?

 

[dcalling]

You sourced research that used alternative methods. Which doesn't mean anything but what that particular methodology concluded.

Do you understand why your response is insufficient to rebuke my comments?

All I am trying to do is to show you that your evidences are insufficient to show evolution is true and proven. You thought molecular clock is iron clad evidence for evolution, but I used @xianghua 's examples of most recent researches that shows huge issues with Molecular clocks. It basically showed you that your claim of how prefect inline they are are wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

All I am trying to do is to show you that your evidences are insufficient to show evolution is true and proven. You thought molecular clock is iron clad evidence for evolution, but I used @xianghua 's examples of most recent researches that shows huge issues with Molecular clocks. It basically showed you that your claim of how prefect inline they are are wrong.

But you sourced different methods.

Why dont you understand this?

Its like me using uranium lead dating for an object that is 700 million years old and saying, hey look, we got the right answer.

Then you come along sourcing radiocarbon dating of a dinosaur bone, which gives a wrong result, and then you say "well obviously radioactive dating is all wrong". (which of course it would be wrong if there were flaws in the methodology).

Do you see why this doesnt make sense?

The article I sourced was examining proteins, and using accumulated change in microbiological features, to predict the age of fossils in the past 10 million years.

Your rebuttal, was in relation to a team that was examining fossils and DNA and used fossils as nodes to make predictions dating back to the paleozoic.

Do you not see why your rebuttal doesnt make sense? Theyre completely different tests, using different methods, on different objects from different times. They aren't analogous.

You are putting your trust into people who arent scientists and have no idea what they are talking about. Same with that noble mouse guy, these people are...clueless. The guy cant even read a simple geologic map, yet hes trying to tell everyone that he knows more about the earth than the entire scientific community. Its just ridiculous. Its equivalent to an electrical engineer saying that he knows more about brain surgery than brain surgeons.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you really want to rebuke the research of sarich and wilson, you have to use their methodology, and you would have to make a false prediction with respect to their line of research.

You cant say, well, this person was tested negative for type 2 diabetes, therefore all of mankind must be negative for type 1.

And I highly suggest you read

Summary data from the long-term evolution experiment
INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

these^

 

[dcalling]

But you sourced different methods.

Why dont you understand this?

Its like me using uranium lead dating for an object that is 700 million years old and saying, hey look, we got the right answer.

Then you come along sourcing radiocarbon dating of a dinosaur bone, which gives a wrong result, and then you say "well obviously radioactive dating is all wrong". (which of course it would be wrong if there were flaws in the methodology).

Do you see why this doesnt make sense?

The article I sourced was examining proteins, and using accumulated change in microbiological features, to predict the age of fossils in the past 10 million years.

Your rebuttal, was in relation to a team that was examining fossils and DNA and used fossils as nodes to make predictions dating back to the paleozoic.

Do you not see why your rebuttal doesnt make sense? Theyre completely different tests, using different methods, on different objects from different times. They aren't analogous.

You are putting your trust into people who arent scientists and have no idea what they are talking about. Same with that noble mouse guy, these people are...clueless. The guy cant even read a simple geologic map, yet hes trying to tell everyone that he knows more about the earth than the entire scientific community. Its just ridiculous. Its equivalent to an electrical engineer saying that he knows more about brain surgery than brain surgeons.

Well, the problem is your source says the fossiles are younger, but the other department of scientists (not the people on this form) says they strongly disagree, and the fossiles are much order. If you read the link Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University, you will notice that it contradicts your claim, and that paleobonist think Molcular clock is wrong. Do you agree with that?

 

[dcalling]

If you really want to rebuke the research of sarich and wilson, you have to use their methodology, and you would have to make a false prediction with respect to their line of research.

You cant say, well, this person was tested negative for type 2 diabetes, therefore all of mankind must be negative for type 1.

And I highly suggest you read

Summary data from the long-term evolution experiment
INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

these^

I simply used their result. Here you quoted their research data from the first 20k generations, when the e.coli virus are doing their round of permutations on possible mutations. But the latest and more recent ones definitely shows the fixed benifitial mutations are slowing down, and they have to switch to so called fitness to show something might still changing (even that is slowing too).

 

[Job 33:6]

I simply used their result. Here you quoted their research data from the first 20k generations, when the e.coli virus are doing their round of permutations on possible mutations. But the latest and more recent ones definitely shows the fixed benifitial mutations are slowing down, and they have to switch to so called fitness to show something might still changing (even that is slowing too).

Their fitness is increasing at a linear rate, their rate of increased fitness slowed, however this is inevitable in a stable environment. But none of this really matters. All you are doing, is giving an example of organisms mutating, and showing that their accumulated mutations are resulting in phenotypic and genotypic change, over time. This is evolution. All you are doing with your research paper, is showing that evolution is true.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, the problem is your source says the fossiles are younger, but the other department of scientists (not the people on this form) says they strongly disagree, and the fossiles are much order. If you read the link Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University, you will notice that it contradicts your claim, and that paleobonist think Molcular clock is wrong. Do you agree with that?

That is correct, one team says that X fossils are younger, and another team says that Y fossils are older.

Theyre talking about different fossils, from different times, and they are using different methods to derive their conclusions.

For some reason, you don't seem to understand this.

They are, I agree, examing research related to using molecular clocks. But they are two independent teams, doing two independent studies, using two independent methods, on different test subjects from different time periods.

You can't say that because one team concluded a false result, that all other teams using all other methods on all other test subjects, are also wrong. That's just improper logic.

And no I do not agree that paleobotonists all think molecular clock research is wrong, im sure i could find plenty of research from paleobotonists supporting molecular clock research. It all comes down to what methods are being used. Some might be looking at amino acids, some looking more at fossils, some might be looking at a large number of fossils, some might be looking at just a few, some might be looking at plant fossils that are prevelant in the cenozoic, some might be in ancient paleozoic times looking at a collection that isnt as clearly understood.

The point is, different types of tests are going to give different results. Science isn't about knowing the answer before deriving conclusions. Its about testing answers to see if theyre right or wrong, to derive conclusions. So, you naturally find people with right and wrong tests.

Einstein, before his theory of relativity and theory of gravity became accepted, he performed tests, mathematical tests. And some of his tests failed, and some were successful. And he used these tests to better understand the existence of gravity and the theory of gravity.

The same goes for research in evolution. There are failed tests and there are successful ones, and people are using the successful ones to better define how evolution occurs. And there will be disagreement, there will be failed tests, there will be upsets. But its all for the trial and error sake of learning how evolution occurs. Because at the end of the day, there are successful tests, tests that correlate and align and create predictive ability. There are successful tests like that e.coli research, that allow us to understand the reality of evolution (mutations that accumulate and result in phenotypic and genotypic change over time).

 

[dcalling]

Their fitness is increasing at a linear rate, their rate of increased fitness slowed, however this is inevitable in a stable environment. But none of this really matters. All you are doing, is giving an example of organisms mutating, and showing that their accumulated mutations are resulting in phenotypic and genotypic change, over time. This is evolution. All you are doing with your research paper, is showing that evolution is true.

You forget to mention that the "benifitial" mutation fixation is slowing too. It has been several years since their last report. Make you wonder why those things are not mutating to show more.

Stable environment is no execuse, since with random mutations, a stable environment should allow the survive of more variations.

 

[dcalling]

OK, let see the actual quote from the article:
Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University
"However, for years we have seen molecular dates, mostly for very deep evolutionary events, that are much older than the corresponding fossils"

Does it seem to you that they are talking about different fossils?

That is correct, one team says that X fossils are younger, and another team says that Y fossils are older.

Theyre talking about different fossils, from different times, and they are using different methods to derive their conclusions.

For some reason, you don't seem to understand this.

They are, I agree, examing research related to using molecular clocks. But they are two independent teams, doing two independent studies, using two independent methods, on different test subjects from different time periods.

You can't say that because one team concluded a false result, that all other teams using all other methods on all other test subjects, are also wrong. That's just improper logic.

And no I do not agree that paleobotonists all think molecular clock research is wrong, im sure i could find plenty of research from paleobotonists supporting molecular clock research. It all comes down to what methods are being used. Some might be looking at amino acids, some looking more at fossils, some might be looking at a large number of fossils, some might be looking at just a few, some might be looking at plant fossils that are prevelant in the cenozoic, some might be in ancient paleozoic times looking at a collection that isnt as clearly understood.

The point is, different types of tests are going to give different results. Science isn't about knowing the answer before deriving conclusions. Its about testing answers to see if theyre right or wrong, to derive conclusions. So, you naturally find people with right and wrong tests.

Einstein, before his theory of relativity and theory of gravity became accepted, he performed tests, mathematical tests. And some of his tests failed, and some were successful. And he used these tests to better understand the existence of gravity and the theory of gravity.

The same goes for research in evolution. There are failed tests and there are successful ones, and people are using the successful ones to better define how evolution occurs. And there will be disagreement, there will be failed tests, there will be upsets. But its all for the trial and error sake of learning how evolution occurs. Because at the end of the day, there are successful tests, tests that correlate and align and create predictive ability. There are successful tests like that e.coli research, that allow us to understand the reality of evolution (mutations that accumulate and result in phenotypic and genotypic change over time).

 

[Job 33:6]

You forget to mention that the "benifitial" mutation fixation is slowing too. It has been several years since their last report. Make you wonder why those things are not mutating to show more.

Stable environment is no execuse, since with random mutations, a stable environment should allow the survive of more variations.

They published a paper just a few months ago. And from the looks of it, beneficial mutations are still occurring at what appears to be a steady rate. I will read through it and will get back to you on it.

 

[Job 33:6]

OK, let see the actual quote from the article:
Turn back the molecular clock, say Argentina's plant fossils | Penn State University
"However, for years we have seen molecular dates, mostly for very deep evolutionary events, that are much older than the corresponding fossils"

Does it seem to you that they are talking about different fossils?

Yes, it does. If you read the paper, they are talking about plant fossils dating into the mesozoic (200+ million years old), whereas the dating done by sarich and wilson was all within the late miocene and younger (<7 million years). And sarich and wilson didnt use fossils as points of reference in their research either. The youngest fossils in the argentina document are some 40-50 million years old.

Notice how in your quote they threw in the word "deep" evolutionary events? Theyre referring to time.

And actually, if you look at their research document, depending on the specimen, and the fossil nodes used, some of the molecular clock predictions are accurate (though others, particularly of older and more sparse fossils are not).

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that, we started this conversation and you were asking for legitimate tests with regard to evolution.

And, here we are with a research paper where people actually observed 60+ thousand generations of e coli evolution, which involved increased fitness, accumulated mutations, genotypic and phenotypic evolution etc.

And we have seen a successful molecular clock test regarding the use of amino acid comparisons in hominids.

And we have seen a faulty molecular clock test utilizing fossil nodes of plants in the late cenozoic.


These are all good tests.

Collectively, it is all pretty self explanatory when you combine it with the fossil succession.

 

[Job 33:6]

What feasible alternative is there, aside from the fossil record being a result of accumulated mutations over time? Just like we see in the e.coli experiment. The molecular clock experiments, depending on the methodology are also making accurate predictions, but their predictions operate under the assumption that mutations accumulate...oh wait, its not an assumption because its readily observable.

For people with common sense, this is no longer a discussion about whether or not life evolved. It becomes a discussion of...how life evolved. With the e.coli, when the experiment started, nobody was asking if the bacteria would evolve. They were asking how the bacteria would evolve.

And this is where we are at in science. Just figuring out the fine details.