Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

If you have a new paper I would love to read it.

Thanks!

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]

If you have a new paper I would love to read it.

Thanks!

The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[dcalling]

The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. - PubMed - NCBI

So they reversed again back to 2009 position? I would love to see the details in the paper and see how they archive this observation, i.e. what kind of different mutations that they deem benifitial are fixating in the strains. Do you have a link to the full paper?

 

[Job 33:6]

So they reversed again back to 2009 position? I would love to see the details in the paper and see how they archive this observation, i.e. what kind of different mutations that they deem benifitial are fixating in the strains. Do you have a link to the full paper?

The full paper is not free. So, I cannot post the whole thing here. But I can quote it.

 

[dcalling]

The full paper is not free. So, I cannot post the whole thing here. But I can quote it.

I think we are starting to discuss the same thing in 2 different thread now, will switch to the other post Can an old earth be proven? since you posted more interest stuff even though this thread is more on topic

 

[compassion 4 humanity]

Is there are proof of either?

Gravity is a theory, too.

 

[GenemZ]

Is there are proof of either?

Evolutionists intellectuals play a game with what the see as the naive common man. We are to assume that their intelligence allows them to see deeply in how things came into being. The reason being is their "great intelligence" that grants them great understanding of the complexities of biological function.

But, that is where their hypocrisy comes in. For with all their ability to collect details? They are with the least excuse to believe what they claim is truth. For to see many complex and intertwining with inter dependencies exist in living creatures? To think it all just came about by random chance? Its all of a sudden turning them on their head, and now they look like morons. For the very things they delve into with amazing complexity... shows that it would have been impossible to have its origins as they claim.

Instead of delving into the origin of life they quickly shy away from it and will refer you to another field of alleged expertise. Because? They love their toys they play with.

Their facts? Facts about biological function... which they become very impressed with themselves when they find themselves revealing their superior intellectual prowess to "the common man" who understands little compared to themselves.

Its an ego trip. The very ego trip that makes them hate God.. For? If they were to stand next to the Lord? They know if He is real? They would become intellectually insignificant. Nobody would worship them as they want to be seen.

 

[GenemZ]

Is anyone else here having problems trying to edit their posts????? It just hangs when I try.

 

[GenemZ]

Is anyone else here having problems trying to edit their posts????? It just hangs when I try.

 

[dcalling]

Gravity is a theory, too.

You can repeatly test and verify theory of gravity. You can only do that to a tiny portion of TOE

 

[GenemZ]

You can repeatly test and verify theory of gravity. You can only do that to a tiny portion of TOE

The only thing TOE can testify to is the small changes that may take place when a creature is placed in a survival mode.

But those changes do not disprove God's hand in creation. For being omniscient. He designed with foreknowledge what would be needed for the creature's adaptation and continuation. Just like a chameleon will change it colors according to its background, so have certain creatures been designed and created with latent abilities that never come to light until a survival situation triggers the activation for the change... Its simply God's omniscience being revealed when that happens. Its not evolution. But a revelation of the Creator's omniscience being revealed.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Is there are proof of either?

False. But then, so is Noah's flood.

 

[jamesbond007]

I think ToE is strictly a theory. One of the things going against it are living fossils, a term Darwin invented.

"When Charles Darwin invented the term 'living fossils' in 1859, he was thinking of living species that look just like their ancestors of millions of years ago. His explanation was they occupied small parts of the world, escaping competition, and therefore did not change."

However, we find that there are MANY living fossils found in wider parts of the world, throughout the strata and goes back millions of years without changing much. Some of these are crocodiles, coelacanth, horseshoe crab, Wollemi pine, shark, wasp, mollusk, dragonfly, sycamore, gingko biloba, cancer and more. They remain similar if not exactly alike. It goes against evolution's theory of change over time and the tree of life. I can accept a few like Darwin thought, but not ones that faced the same changes as other creatures' fossils found at the same level.

Some other factors are going on. We find that older evolutionary theories such as Lemarck's straight-line evolution and Mendel genetic theory are coming back with epigenetic inheritance and genetic engineering. These are more rapid forms of mutation or change as opposed to claims of slow evolutionary change for the living fossils due to less competition.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-weight-darwin-theory-fossils.html#jCp

 

[Job 33:6]

I think ToE is strictly a theory. One of the things going against it are living fossils, a term Darwin invented.

"When Charles Darwin invented the term 'living fossils' in 1859, he was thinking of living species that look just like their ancestors of millions of years ago. His explanation was they occupied small parts of the world, escaping competition, and therefore did not change."

However, we find that there are MANY living fossils found in wider parts of the world, throughout the strata and goes back millions of years without changing much. Some of these are crocodiles, coelacanth, horseshoe crab, Wollemi pine, shark, wasp, mollusk, dragonfly, sycamore, gingko biloba, cancer and more. They remain similar if not exactly alike. It goes against evolution's theory of change over time and the tree of life. I can accept a few like Darwin thought, but not ones that faced the same changes as other creatures' fossils found at the same level.

Some other factors are going on. We find that older evolutionary theories such as Lemarck's straight-line evolution and Mendel genetic theory are coming back with epigenetic inheritance and genetic engineering. These are more rapid forms of mutation or change as opposed to claims of slow evolutionary change for the living fossils due to less competition.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-weight-darwin-theory-fossils.html#jCp

Aligators of today are not the same as back then, nor are sharks or any other example you've provided.

Have you ever seen a megalodon swimming around? Aligators we're 2-3 times larger back then as well. Morphologically they we're independent species than those that live today.

Living fossil do resemble their ancestors, however they are still morphologically different and unique from those ancestors.

Horseshoe crabs look a lot like trilobites as well, but they're morphologically different.

Dragon flys as well had wing spans up to 3-4 feet as well in the past.

 

[jamesbond007]

Aligators of today are not the same as back then, nor are sharks or any other example you've provided.

Have you ever seen a megalodon swimming around? Aligators we're 2-3 times larger back then as well. Morphologically they we're independent species than those that live today.

Living fossil do resemble their ancestors, however they are still morphologically different and unique from those ancestors.

Horseshoe crabs look a lot like trilobites as well, but they're morphologically different.

Dragon flys as well had wing spans up to 3-4 feet as well in the past.

Just because they're not the same doesn't mean they changed over time, part of the tree of life and are common ancestors as Darwin believed.

Back in his day, Darwin said these living fossils were few and didn't change because there were in remote locations and wasn't any reason to, i.e. there wasn't environmental pressures and competition. However, there are so many of these living fossils found in wide areas of the world and they're found in same layers as dinosaurs and even earlier. How evos have explained is that these evolved slowly over time.

Yet, today we know that creatures can be hybrids and evolved rapidly over a few months. We have genetic engineering and epigenetic inheritance where they evolve even more rapidly. This doesn't follow Darwin's evolution of changes over time and tree of life. Instead of a tree, it seems there are bushes of life. It doesn't follow slow natural selection or slow mutation. It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to scrap Darwin's evolution, but it appears that he was wrong. I agree with his evolution by natural selection, but this natural selection happened much more rapidly than he thought. We have to question his changes over millions of years.

 

[jamesbond007]

Here's what I call rapid evolution. It didn't take years for these swallows to evolve. One of the weaknesses of Darwin's evolution was we never saw it happen over the years.

This guy calls it evolution, but whose evolution?

 

[Job 33:6]

"Just because they're not the same doesn't mean they changed over time"

Well, if they are different now than they were back then...then assuming some form of common descent has occurred, then yes, they have changed over time. Otherwise, why would they be different?

If hypothetically evolution were true, then nothing should be the same over say, 10 million years.

And as we see, animals of the present are not the same as they were in the past.

So the whole argument about..."living fossils" is meaningless, because there really is no such thing as a "living fossil" because the fossils in reality are no longer living and are not the same as the animals today.

And, lets take alligators for example. They are king predators, always have been for as long as we've had awareness of them.

So tell me why alligators should change more than they have...

 

[DrakMugiVenwing1989]

Proof of either what?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that existing life forms have evolved from ancestral life forms and share common ancestry. There is also a large body of theory that explains how and why evolution has occurred.

Explain when evolution became a law? Because the last time I picked up a science book, there was no proof that it stopped being a scientific theory. And Im still waiting to see proof of how humans came from monkeys.

 

[sfs]

Explain when evolution became a law?

Facts don't become laws in science. A "law" in science is a simple empirical relationship between observable phenomena or measurements. It's also a term that is almost never applied in contemporary science.

Because the last time I picked up a science book, there was no proof that it stopped being a scientific theory.

A "theory" in science just mean an explanation for phenomena, often a large explanatory framework that encompasses a range of data. Theories don't become laws, and scientists almost rarely talk about "proving" theories. Instead, the measure of a scientific theory is how well it is supported by evidence -- what data it has explained and predicted. By that measure, evolution (specifically, common descent) is such a well-supported theory that we can routinely treat it as true -- which is what a fact is. The ideas that germs cause disease, that matter is made of atoms and that the earth orbits the sun are all theories. They're also facts.

And Im still waiting to see proof of how humans came from monkeys.

There is an abundance of evidence that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. I've written up a little bit of it here.

 

[NobleMouse]

Explain when evolution became a law? Because the last time I picked up a science book, there was no proof that it stopped being a scientific theory. And Im still waiting to see proof of how humans came from monkeys.

Greetings brother! You are correct, The "T" in ToE is there for a reason. There's a number of fundamental difficulties with evolution. These are some older videos where some of the more notable challenges and logical fallacies are discussed:

and...

These certainly aren't intended to speak in scientific technical terms; however, provide a comprehensive overview.

God bless you for your faith and trust in God's word that He created life, fully formed and fully complex (hence why life found in even the Cambrian layer are of equal complexity and very similar to life that still exists today). Life isn't becoming more complex, "beneficial mutations" and natural selection has never been observed creating a new kind - neither in nature nor repeated in a lab. God's word will remain true, even after the 'wisdom' of this age falls away.