Is evolution a fact or theory?

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

To better explain, you said this:

"So, evolution is either [1] slow and progressive with many many transitions between, or [2] there is many radical biological changes that suddenly happen quickly with long periods of stasis."

Here, you present a false dichotemy. Either something is slow and progressive, or it is something "radical".

You suggest that PE perhaps disproves? the idea of slow and progressive?

But here

"The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution. It is a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record. It claims that an important pattern, continuous at higher levels—the 'classic' macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not—see Carson, 1975), but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond."

My same quote again, with Gould recognizing allopatric speciation. Which, being a species to species form of gradual evolution via mutation and natural selection, is something relatively gradual, though simultaneously we wouldnt consider it "radical" even though it is suggest to be plausible by Gould and Eldredge.

Nice quote, unfortunately the fossil record is not supporting all of these gradual series happening within a "geological microsecond" so once again, evolution is supported on the unseen, marginal artifact, rather than what is, in large, observably in contradiction to such ideas... check out the lower portion of post #1253 - it seems to apply to you as well since your knee-jerk reaction to every post is to quibble over scientific assertions, definitions, and interpretations.

 

[NobleMouse]

Unfortunately you have to actually read about these things rather than just basing your understanding on a single sentence.

Have you ever read Gould's works?

Not much, I've spent more time reading God's works.

 

[Job 33:6]

One example of evolution via geographic isolation of species is the separation of elephants with the splitting of africa from india, and the subsequent evolution of african and indian elephants.

Its not a coincidence that elephants are randomly living in india and africa but nowhere in between.

 

[Job 33:6]

Nice quote, unfortunately the fossil record is not supporting all of these gradual series happening within a "geological microsecond" so once again, evolution is supported on the unseen, marginal artifact, rather than what is, in large, observably in contradiction to such ideas... check out the lower portion of post #1253 - it seems to apply to you as well since your knee-jerk reaction to every post is to quibble over scientific assertions, definitions, and interpretations.

Doesnt matter. Everyone is well aware that the fossil record doesnt depict subspecies changes. The earth is 4.56 billion years old, you arent going to get layers for every year of its existence.

 

[Job 33:6]

But ultimately, the above lack of subspecies changes from layer to layer does not equate to "radical" biological changes, as you seemed to suggest earlier in the discussion. Because there is nothing "radical" about allopatric speciation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not much, I've spent more time reading God's works.

Then let us, the scientists, handle the works of science. You should stick with scriptural arguments as this is your stronger of the two positions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

Wrong.

It's quite correct. The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", for example, is directly contradicted by Genesis. And yes, I'm aware that your personal re-interpretation of scripture convinces you otherwise. It's just wrong, demonstrably so. No way to dodge that.

God so created things that many rocks contain information as to their age.

Unsubstantiated - you cannot support this idea

Remember when I told you that ignorance can hurt you? Here's an example. We can test the idea in various ways, but most directly:

Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years
Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at UC Berkeley and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.
08.28.97 - Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

No way to dodge reality. Try to make an accommodation to it.

Fossils do not contain evidence that they evolved

You keep forgetting. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. This is why your fellow YE creationist,Kurt Wise, admits that transitional fossil series are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

In the whales you illustrated, there was a continuous change over time. The earliest whales, as you learned, had unique structures of the skull that so identified them. They were only partially adapted for water.

Not surprisingly, you see gradual changes over the series that show slow evolutionary change.

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged
Basilosaurus]) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes, and on the other hand by the
family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes. That same series is also a morphological series:
Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller; Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales; the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth; and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.

This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or
even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

To you, I'm sure this looks like a perfectly natural and progressive series demonstrating the whale evolution

Looks like that to your fellow YE creationist, too.

And you don't even know what 1 Corinthians 2:14 is talking about. Paul is speaking to you here:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

You've attempted to insert man's understanding into God's word. It's a mistake for you to have done so. Instead of using your wishes and the new doctrines of modern man, you should let the spirit guide you.

Instead of valuing your own, modern revision of scripture, let God be God and accept it His way. Worth a try.

 

[The Barbarian]

Doesnt matter. Everyone is well aware that the fossil record doesnt depict subspecies changes. The earth is 4.56 billion years old, you arent going to get layers for every year of its existence.

As Gould said, a good record of such miniscule changes is extremely rare. But not unknown. Gould mentions horses, ammonites, and forams as examples. In each case, they happened to be numerous and in environments where fossilization was relatively common.

 

[The Barbarian]

I looked it up before posting:
View attachment 231758

This is why Eldridge and Gould recognize the importance of allopatric speciation. They weren't the first to notice it. Mayr, I believe first realized that unusual species of a group tended to be in isolated places. And it's not hard to see why. A small population, encountering a different environment, would more easily (due to "founder effect") evolve more quickly.

Subsequent investigation has verified this. It's a very common mode of speciation. The key point is that speciation, while slow in human terms, is usually extremely rapid in geological terms. So what? So we get to see speciations from time to time. The sort of evolution that rarely shows up in the fossil record, has been directly observed by humans.

Eldridge and Gould explained why, using an observation that Darwin made in his book. A well-fitted population in a constant environment, will be prevented from evolving much, because of natural selection. But a small population, encountering a different environment, will rapidly evolve because of natural selection.

 

[dcalling]

Here's an easy one. Mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary/squamosal. Reptiles have the jaw joint at the quadrate/articular. So there's a very clear gap between them. And here's the transitionals:

At a point in the evolution of therapsids, both joints exist, with the new joint evolving in a stepwise fashion. Four steps do it.



See above. Reality tops anyone's rationalizations.

(Barbarian points out that genetic analysis confirms common descent)



We can check on that, by examining the genes of organisms with known descent. Turns out, that validates the conclusion.

Well, look at your picture above. There is a gap between morganucodon and opossum, how do you fill that? @NobleMouse 's post is a good example that points out how you over extend what science is able to prove today.

And genetics today only validates a tiny set of what's been assumed, your claim of descent validation is way too big. We have only successfully verified (by verify I mean repeatably reproduce or observe) very few genetic mutations possible compared to what we have in the world.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, look at your picture above. There is a gap between morganucodon and opossum, how do you fill that? @NobleMouse 's post is a good example that points out how you over extend what science is able to prove today.

And genetics today only validates a tiny set of what's been assumed, your claim of descent validation is way too big. We have only successfully verified (by verify I mean repeatably reproduce or observe) very few genetic mutations possible compared to what we have in the world.

You know, if you took the skulls of an African elephant and an Indian elephant, or an alligator and crocodile, you would find gaps between those too.

 

[Job 33:6]

As Gould said, a good record of such miniscule changes is extremely rare. But not unknown. Gould mentions horses, ammonites, and forams as examples. In each case, they happened to be numerous and in environments where fossilization was relatively common.

Can you source this statement?

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe it's in Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes, but I'll have to read it again, to find it.

Here's two more cases Gould cites from Evolution as Fact and Theory:
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, look at your picture above. There is a gap between morganucodon and opossum, how do you fill that?

Sinoconodon.

Cranial structure and relationships of the Liassic mammal Sinoconodon
Zoologzcal Journal of the Linnean Society (1985), 85:99-1 19
The skull of the ‘Rhaeto-Liassic’ mammal Sinoconodon changchiawaensis (Young) from the lower Lufeng
Series of China is described. It is characterized by a relatively larger and more robust dentary condyle
and a greater reduction of the post-dentary bones than are present in the Morganucodontidae, Kuehneotheriidae, and Dinnelherium.

@NobleMouse 's post is a good example that points out how you over extend what science is able to prove today.[/quote]

As you now see, he had no idea as to what evidence was at hand.

And genetics today only validates a tiny set of what's been assumed, your claim of descent validation is way too big.

As you know, we can verify it by checking to see if it works on organisms of known descent. Turns out, it does. No point in denying the fact.

We have only successfully verified (by verify I mean repeatably reproduce or observe) very few genetic mutations possible compared to what we have in the world.

However, as you learned, we have observed the evolution of useful new traits by random mutation and natural selection. So there's no point in denying what has been directly observed.

 

[dcalling]

You know, if you took the skulls of an African elephant and an Indian elephant, or an alligator and crocodile, you would find gaps between those too.

By the looks they are very similar, and in my personal believe they are most likely mutations of each other, but to be scientifically strict you have to find a mutation path between the two before you can declare it is 100% sure.

 

[dcalling]

Sinoconodon.

Cranial structure and relationships of the Liassic mammal Sinoconodon
Zoologzcal Journal of the Linnean Society (1985), 85:99-1 19
The skull of the ‘Rhaeto-Liassic’ mammal Sinoconodon changchiawaensis (Young) from the lower Lufeng
Series of China is described. It is characterized by a relatively larger and more robust dentary condyle
and a greater reduction of the post-dentary bones than are present in the Morganucodontidae, Kuehneotheriidae, and Dinnelherium.

Now 2 gaps, morganucodon-> Sinoconodon and Sinoconodon->opossum

As you know, we can verify it by checking to see if it works on organisms of known descent. Turns out, it does. No point in denying the fact.

However, as you learned, we have observed the evolution of useful new traits by random mutation and natural selection. So there's no point in denying what has been directly observed.

Except it is assumed, you are just assuming they are related due to shared traits, and it could very well be, that they are related by the shared library that God used to create them, and nothing more, unless you can show us how in natural conditions all those DNA mutations can occur from one species to the other.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now 2 gaps, morganucodon-> Sinoconodon and Sinoconodon->opossum

As you see, this occurs by stepwise changes. Gradually, a bit at a time. These very slight chagnes are less than is found within many species of mammal. And yet, there is a gradual change from one type of jaw joint to another.

Except it is assumed,

No. Predicted. It was predicted that there would be transitional forms between the quadrate jaw joint and the dentary jaw joint. The first verification of this prediction was Diarthrognathus, which fits in between Thrinaxodon and Probainognathus. And so on, confirming the prediction. BTW, we can see this in embryology, too.

Early on, the short-tailed opossum embryo has the reptilian jaw joint. Later, these move to the middle ear, and the normal mammalian dentary joint forms. There's no way to deny this.

 

[dcalling]

Well, that is an assumption, not a fact. In fact, with the culmination of knowledge on genetics, we start to see the boundries in genetics, from the long term e.coli evolution test, to this 2018 article https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html, a quote:
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

You claim that living creatures can change slightly and those slight change accumlate to vastly different things is just an assumption, as we all we know about genetics is just the tip of the icebuger. Our QA often claim "I saw this, there for the bug must be that", and most of the time they got it wrong because they didn't write the code and they understand very little about the code, all they saw are some corrlations and they assumed.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp

As you see, this occurs by stepwise changes. Gradually, a bit at a time. These very slight chagnes are less than is found within many species of mammal. And yet, there is a gradual change from one type of jaw joint to another.



No. Predicted. It was predicted that there would be transitional forms between the quadrate jaw joint and the dentary jaw joint. The first verification of this prediction was Diarthrognathus, which fits in between Thrinaxodon and Probainognathus. And so on, confirming the prediction. BTW, we can see this in embryology, too.

Early on, the short-tailed opossum embryo has the reptilian jaw joint. Later, these move to the middle ear, and the normal mammalian dentary joint forms. There's no way to deny this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, that is an assumption, not a fact.

Sorry, you're wrong. As you now realize, it's a demonstrated fact.

In fact, with the culmination of knowledge on genetics

There is no "culmination." Knowledge is accelerating in the field of genetics. You've been misled about that.

we start to see the boundries in genetics, from the long term e.coli evolution test,

Hall's bacteria showed that a new enzyme system could evolve in a few months by random mutation and natural selection. In a couple of decades, lizards evolved a new digestive organ by the same means. So the "boundaries" are already documented to be far beyond what we imagined just a few decades ago.

However, Darwin pointed out that there would be boundaries beyond which evolution would not go. For example, it would be great for humans to evolve a second set of arms, but that particular adaptation is closed to us, because the intermediate stages would be harmful to us.

So as you see, only those adaptations like a stronger jaw and better hearing have evolved in mammals, because they had transitional stages that were not harmful to the organisms having them.

You claim that living creatures can change slightly and those slight change accumlate to vastly different things is just an assumption,

See above. The transition from reptile to mammal turns out to have occurred by small increments over many generations. The transitional forms predicted by evolutionary theory have been found. No assumptions necessary.

as we all we know about genetics is just the tip of the icebuger.

It's true. Genetics verifies the predictions first made by the tree of living things discovered by Linnaeus. As predicted, groups closely related to each other according to phenotype, are also related genetically, to a very high precision. And we know that works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

But the discovery of many, many predicted transitionals (but never a transitional where the theory says it shouldn't be) also verifies the fact.

And occasionally, we find something else. There are conserved biological molecules like hemoglobin and cytochrome C that give us the same predicted relationships. In one remarkable case, a bit of heme was found in a T. rex bone. When tested, it was found to be more like that of birds than like that of existing reptiles. Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Would you like to learn more about any of this?

 

[Cement]

Micro evolution does happen its how we got blue eyes, red hair, frekles ect all the minute differences between ourselves and other groups of people. Macro evolution or ape-man theory is a completly unsubstantiated theory that relies on falsehoods and half truths. Dont get confused by the two.