Is evolution a fact or theory?

[sfs]

And as we follow your Darwinian theology backwards when we hit the "I have no idea" point on the timeline we simply ignore the the emperor's lack of attire we prop up poor little Dagon, hoping no one saw him lying on his face. <chuckle-snort>

No, when we get to the "I have no idea" point, we say, "I have no idea". Radical concept, I know. Where we do have an idea, though -- and more than an idea, overwhelming evidence -- we don't pretend we don't know anything just because we don't know everything.

If God directly and miraculously created the first life. . . great. Humans are still descended from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Since it's usually this last fact that upsets creationists the most, I can see why they want to change the subject to the origin of life.

 

[sfs]

And as we follow your Darwinian theology

There is no such thing as Darwinian theology, by the way, just as there's no such thing as Einsteinian theology. My theology is Christian. Evolutionary biology, like physics, is the study of some aspects of the created world, nothing more.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Humans are still descended from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

If you claim to be, I won't argue with that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Your error was conflating the origin of species with the origin of life. As you now realize, you had no idea what the theory of evolution was about, and so imagined it was about people coming from an organic soup. Learn from this and move on.

Because species aren't life.

More properly, the origin of life has nothing to to with evolution. As you learned, evolutionary theory recognizes that living things exist, and describes how they change over time. As you know, Darwin just assumed that God made the first living things. "Because species aren't life" is another foolish misrepresentation you've invented and insisted that other people have to believe it.

Awesome. I'll add that to "humans evolved, but even if they didn't evolve they still evolved" and "babies evolved from something, and where they came from is irrelevant because they evolved from something."

Those were other fakes you pretended others believe. Do you really think you can serve God by being dishonest?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Those were other fakes you pretended others believe. Do you really think you can serve God by being dishonest?

Being lectured on serving God by a guy who believes humans evolved from monkeys. Now that's funny stuff right there.

 

[Job 33:6]

Being lectured on serving God by a guy who believes humans evolved from monkeys. Now that's funny stuff right there.

You're being dishonest with yourself. Unable to admit that life is evolving, regardless of how it originated.

I will pray for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Those were other fakes you pretended others believe. Do you really think you can serve God by being dishonest?

Being lectured on serving God by a guy who believes humans evolved from monkeys.

So you invent yet another fake? Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. It seems you have nothing in the quiver but weird misconceptions of evolution.

Now that's funny stuff right there.

It's funny in a way, but it's also kind of sad. You can't serve God by lying for Him.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You can't serve God by lying for Him.

Spoken from someone who feels he can serve God by lying about Him. That plank just got a bit bigger, doncha know.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You're being dishonest with yourself. Unable to admit that life is evolving, regardless of how it originated.

I will pray for you.

Just please omit praying for my alleged monkey ancestors. Unless it's Davey Jones, then I'm good with it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just please omit praying for my alleged monkey ancestors. Unless it's Davey Jones, then I'm good with it.

You will be receiving many prayers.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You will be receiving many prayers.

Awesome. Thanks.

 

[dcalling]

Quite a few fossils, like Protarchaeopteryx.

Protarchaeopteryx had long legs, and could have been a quick runner. It had well-developed, vaned feathers extended from a relatively short tail; the hands were long and slender, and had three fingers with sharp, curved claws. Its bones were hollow and bird-like, and it possessed a wishbone.[5] At around 1 metre (3.3 ft) in length, it would have been larger than Archaeopteryx.[5] Protarchaeopteryx also had symmetrical feathers on its tail. Since modern birds that have symmetrical feathers are flightless, and the skeletal structure of Protarchaeopteryx would not support flapping flight, it is assumed that it was flightless as well.[6] It has been suggested that it could have had an arboreal lifestyle, jumping from tree limbs and using its forelimbs for a form of parachuting.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protarchaeopteryx

Barbarian, regarding what feathers are for:
Just like today, they also provide insulation and are used for display. Flight came much later. Features that are useful for one thing are often adapted later to other uses. Would you like to learn more about that?



Already have. It's just a fact. Feathers are used in all birds for insulation, and in almost all birds for display as well. Flight came later.



Not that simple. You're missing a lot. You see, the motion for flight is also preadapted, as is the respiratory requirement. Would you like to learn how they were adapted long before there were birds?



No, that's wrong, too. Do you think ostriches have useless wings?

I guess ostriches are a good counter example.

Nope. For the same reason wings are adaptive for ostriches.



A true extinction event is when at least one species goes extinct. The Quaternary and Pleistocene extinctions had many more. A majority of large mammals, for example, went extinct in those, as the environment changed.



At least 10% of living species show that they've been in existence more than 200,000 years, according to the research you mentioned. That's a lot. And as you learned, it effectively rules out YE creationism.



Yep. An impassible problem for YE creationism.



The study you cited did. Only about 90% of living species are younger than that. If YE creationism were true, 100% of them would be.

Well, first YE creationism has nothing to do with our discussion, you know full well about it and you keep trying to steer our discussion somewhere else.

Second, I suspect you know what "true extinction event" means in our discussion and in the context of the article I quoted, it means true mass extinction. So with that, you can't explain why there are such big gaps between species, given the last true extinction event is 65 million year ago?

 

[dcalling]

The research you cited (but apparently didn't read) points that out. Most species persist for perhaps 200,000 years, but some last much longer. Darwin pointed this out himself; where a well-adapted population exists in an environment where the selective pressures remain reasonably constant for that populations, natural selection should prevent evolution of that population.



You're merely assuming that all populations will have the same selective pressures. It doesn't work that way. For example, almost all coelacanths are extinct. Only two deep sea species remain, and they are not found in the fossil record, having evolved rather recently.

Just because they are not found in fossil record does not mean they have evolved recently, agree?

Not according to the paper you cited. About 90% did. The other 10% are much older than that.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp
Yep.

OK that is fine, but why for both old and young species "have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between"? Even for younger ones (that supposed to have evolved recently)? If there are really such rapid succession, and the ages are so closer, we should see much more of those gradual changes as evidences, the earth should be littered with evidences of vast array of transitional forms fossil or alive, many many species should be interbreed able since they are the products of rapid evolution. Yet all we observed is stars in galexys.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding what feathers are for:
Just like today, they also provide insulation and are used for display. Flight came much later. Features that are useful for one thing are often adapted later to other uses. Would you like to learn more about that?

Already have. It's just a fact. Feathers are used in all birds for insulation, and in almost all birds for display as well. Flight came later.

Not that simple. You're missing a lot. You see, the motion for flight is also preadapted, as is the respiratory requirement. Would you like to learn how they were adapted long before there were birds?

No, that's wrong, too. Do you think ostriches have useless wings?

I guess ostriches are a good counter example.

Do you think you can answer the question?

Well, first YE creationism has nothing to do with our discussion

Perhaps if you didn't keep using YE assertions, it would help.

Second, I suspect you know what "true extinction event" means in our discussion

As you learned, a "true extinction event" is one in which one or more species becomes extinct. Perhaps you mean "major extinction event", such as the pleistocene extinction event when about 90% of large mammals went extinct in North America, or the Quaternary extinction event.

and in the context of the article I quoted, it means true mass extinction.

You don't think 90% extinction rates qualify?

So with that, you can't explain why there are such big gaps between species

As you learned, the explanation was pointed out by your guys. About 90% of large mammals went extinct about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Did you even read the paper you cited?

The Quaternary period saw the extinctions of numerous predominantly megafaunal species, which resulted in a collapse in faunal density and diversity, and the extinction of key ecological strata across the globe. The most prominent event in the Late Pleistocene is differentiated from previous Quaternary pulse extinctions by the widespread absence of ecological succession to replace these extinct species, and the regime shift of previously established faunal relationships and habitats as a consequence. The earliest casualties were incurred at 130,000 BCE (the start of the Late Pleistocene), however the great majority of extinctions in Afro-Eurasia and the Americas occurred during the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene epoch (13,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

 

[The Barbarian]

OK that is fine, but why for both old and young species "have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between"?

As you might have learned, if you actually read the paper, you'd find that it's true of most species (which is what you'd expect if we had a major extinction event in the last 200,000 years. But it's not true of all. There are many, many species for which precise boundaries don't exist. Would you like some examples?

Even for younger ones (that supposed to have evolved recently)? If there are really such rapid succession, and the ages are so closer, we should see much more of those gradual changes as evidences, the earth should be littered with evidences of vast array of transitional forms fossil

That's what we see in the fossil record. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the very large number of transitional forms is "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian, regarding what feathers are for:
Just like today, they also provide insulation and are used for display. Flight came much later. Features that are useful for one thing are often adapted later to other uses. Would you like to learn more about that?

Already have. It's just a fact. Feathers are used in all birds for insulation, and in almost all birds for display as well. Flight came later.

Not that simple. You're missing a lot. You see, the motion for flight is also preadapted, as is the respiratory requirement. Would you like to learn how they were adapted long before there were birds?

No, that's wrong, too. Do you think ostriches have useless wings?



Do you think you can answer the question?

Well, what I said is that I actually agree with you that you have a good example with ostriches that countered my argument (i.e. feathers causes trouble for evolution). that is what I mean by good example. About flight is preadapted, it is possible that God created flying birds first then the non-flying ones, but just from a engineer perspective it is likely God created non-flying birds first.

Perhaps if you didn't keep using YE assertions, it would help.

I only quote evidences. Wondering which one I quoted is YE assertions. You however keep quoting some YE scientist

As you learned, a "true extinction event" is one in which one or more species becomes extinct. Perhaps you mean "major extinction event", such as the pleistocene extinction event when about 90% of large mammals went extinct in North America, or the Quaternary extinction event.



You don't think 90% extinction rates qualify?



As you learned, the explanation was pointed out by your guys. About 90% of large mammals went extinct about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Did you even read the paper you cited?

The Quaternary period saw the extinctions of numerous predominantly megafaunal species, which resulted in a collapse in faunal density and diversity, and the extinction of key ecological strata across the globe. The most prominent event in the Late Pleistocene is differentiated from previous Quaternary pulse extinctions by the widespread absence of ecological succession to replace these extinct species, and the regime shift of previously established faunal relationships and habitats as a consequence. The earliest casualties were incurred at 130,000 BCE (the start of the Late Pleistocene), however the great majority of extinctions in Afro-Eurasia and the Americas occurred during the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene epoch (13,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

Your example is totally wrong, in Africa only 16%. Why are you trying to go against established findings when it is against your argument? The last true extinction event is Cretaceous–Tertiary and that is 65 mil ago.

 

[dcalling]

As you might have learned, if you actually read the paper, you'd find that it's true of most species (which is what you'd expect if we had a major extinction event in the last 200,000 years. But it's not true of all. There are many, many species for which precise boundaries don't exist. Would you like some examples?

Read the findings :
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
You can use the compact clusters as example, but you can try (and fail) in denying the actual scientific finding, that the distance between clusters are VAST.

I do comment you on your great try to switch definitions.

That's what we see in the fossil record. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the very large number of transitional forms is "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory.

That is a YE creationist that you really trusted I don't care about his opion, I only care about facts.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is neither fact nor theory, its a phenomenon in nature materialists think can replace God as lifes first first cause.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you might have learned, if you actually read the paper, you'd find that it's true of most species (which is what you'd expect if we had a major extinction event in the last 200,000 years. But it's not true of all. There are many, many species for which precise boundaries don't exist. Would you like some examples?

Read the findings :
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

Most are, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. If there weren't such separations, they'd be subspecies, or species in the process of separation, like ring species. Darwin discussed this in his book. If you understood evolution or the theory that describes it, you wouldn't be surprised.

You can use the compact clusters as example, but you can try (and fail) in denying the actual scientific finding, that the distance between clusters are VAST.

As you learned, that is what has to be for stable species to persist. However, as you should have realized, speciation is a fact; even organizations like ICR and AiG admit it. Indeed, ICR has declared that new species, genera and families evolve. You guys, in the paper you cited, point out that their findings support evolutionary theory. I do comment you on your great try to cover that up.

(Barbarian notes that a YE creationist actually familiar with the theory and with biology, admits that there is "strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory)

That is a YE creationist that you really trusted

He's got a PhD in paleontology, and he's relentlessly honest. He says no matter what the evidence is, he will follow his personal understanding of the Bible. You have to respect that.

I don't care about his opion, I only care about facts.

Fact is, the authors of the paper you cited, concluded that the evidence supports evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, what I said is that I actually agree with you that you have a good example with ostriches that countered my argument (i.e. feathers causes trouble for evolution).

It's worse than you think. Ostriches are very much like the dinosaurs from which birds evolved. Wings in ostriches are balancing and stabilizing organs while running. Like those dinosaurs, ostriches have a shoulder joint that allows free movement of the upper arm to do this.

That motion is the same motion birds use in flight. So as you see, flight in birds was pre-adapted using adaptations for another purpose. Likewise, at least some theropod dinosaurs had the flow-through respiratory system found in birds. That system allows the high metabolic output necessary for flight. Again, pre-adapted.

that is what I mean by good example. About flight is preadapted, it is possible that God created flying birds first then the non-flying ones,

He created life, with some of His creatures evolving adaptations that later made flying birds possible.

but just from a engineer perspective it is likely God created non-flying birds first.

From a creation perspective, He created life with the ability to evolve. So I'll go with His way.