Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

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?

Sure

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.


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.

If that is the case there should be much more types of fossiles then we currently have discovered, and if you over lay them together they should be smooth as cartoon like consider it has been 200k years.

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

Can you quote it?

 

[dcalling]

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.

God designed it that way

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

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

This is where you and me differ. You FIRMLY believe that he created life and let them evolve (based on observations of some jumping fossiles that looks like maybe continues, observed DNA mutations and others).

While the above is possible, I believe (based on the non-continues fossiles, and observed how DNA works), that God created life, created many species, and leave some of the parameters able to change (so that species can mutate to a certain degree), but once the mutation is out side of the boundry, they can't mutate future, just like how most software allows you to config them to certain degree, but can't "evolve" (can be re-written).

 

[Job 33:6]

God designed it that way



This is where you and me differ. You FIRMLY believe that he created life and let them evolve (based on observations of some jumping fossiles that looks like maybe continues, observed DNA mutations and others).

While the above is possible, I believe (based on the non-continues fossiles, and observed how DNA works), that God created life, created many species, and leave some of the parameters able to change (so that species can mutate to a certain degree), but once the mutation is out side of the boundry, they can't mutate future, just like how most software allows you to config them to certain degree, but can't "evolve" (can be re-written).

You're assuming something that doesn't exist. This idea that there is some kind of invisible barrier which stops living things from.mutating beyond a certain point.

If such a thing truly existed, then we wouldn't have things like cancer.

And if we take the following example,

https://www.google.com/search?q=ele...d=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=N5u3cPLXiEb7eM:
View attachment 234617
View attachment 234616

View attachment 234602

Such a belief that evolution were not true, would be to assume that God created, then erased, then created and then reased and then created and then erased, over and over and over and over and over again, millions of times.

As if God created the paleomastodon and was like "Ya know what, I just dont think this creation is "Good" enough, so im going to erase it and create the almost identical yet slightly different gomphotherium.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

God designed it that way

I know you want to believe that, but then there's the problem of suboptimal wings like those of Arachaeopteryx. Only later did more efficient wings evolve. You're presenting God as a mere human, who much fiddle and learn how to do things right.

This is where you and me differ.

Yep. For me, God is the Creator, not some inferior "designer" who has to figure things out a little at a time.

You FIRMLY believe that he created life and let them evolve

Yes. Remember, that he's omnipotent. Engineers are now learning from Him, using evolution to more efficiently solve problems that are not feasible to solve by design. God, as usual, knew the best way.
Would you like to learn about that?

While the above is possible,..., but once the mutation is out side of the boundry, they can't mutate future

That's a testable new belief. Show me an organism with a gene that can't mutate any further, with your evidence for that assumption.

just like how most software allows you to config them to certain degree, but can't "evolve" (can be re-written).

You've made another bad assumption.

Creatures from primordial silicon – Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands.
“GO!” barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in front of
him displays a steady green line across the top of its screen. “Stop!” he says
and the line immediately drops to the bottom.


Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit that
discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it hears “go” and
cuts off the signal when it hears “stop”.


It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task—except
in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic
components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He
can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved
from a “primordial soup” of silicon components guided by the principles of
genetic variation and survival of the fittest.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...at-nobody-understands-clive-davidson-reports/

And things have progressed far, far beyond this since 1997 when evolution was applied to computer technology.

 

[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?

Sure

Modern humans and Neandertals, for example. While most geneticists think that they are close enough to us to qualify as members of the same species, others think they should be classified as a separate species:
According to a new study that analyzed different aspects of the nasal complex in Neanderthals and other later Pleistocene fossils from Europe and Africa, Neanderthals were a distinct species of the genus Homo, and not a subspecies of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) as some scientists thought.
http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...eanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html

If that is the case there should be much more types of fossiles then we currently have discovered

You were surprised to find that there was such a large number of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, for example.

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

Can you quote it?

Komatiite did just that. You ignored it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thats right ^

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.



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

 

[2tim_215]

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?



Modern humans and Neandertals, for example. While most geneticists think that they are close enough to us to qualify as members of the same species, others think they should be classified as a separate species:
According to a new study that analyzed different aspects of the nasal complex in Neanderthals and other later Pleistocene fossils from Europe and Africa, Neanderthals were a distinct species of the genus Homo, and not a subspecies of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) as some scientists thought.
http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...eanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html



You were surprised to find that there was such a large number of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, for example.

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



Komatiite did just that. You ignored it.

All this proves is that there was a common designer or creator if you will.

 

[2tim_215]

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task—except
in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic
components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He
can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved
from a “primordial soup” of silicon components guided by the principles of
genetic variation and survival of the fittest.

That's nonsense Barbarian. A microprocessor and a D to A and D to A converter can do that rather easily.
___________________________________________________________
|Analog voice signal --> A to D ---> digitized voice D to A --> to Oscope|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't look at your link but this is what it sounds like to me. The designer in this case (there could be several) is the one who designed the oscilloscope (the oscilloscope didn't invent itself) and the designer(s) of the A/D and D/A converters.

 

[The Barbarian]

All this proves is that there was a common designer or creator if you will.

Not a mere designer. The Creator. And it shows that He used evolution to do His will.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task—except
in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic
components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He
can’t ask the designer because there wasn’t one. Instead, the circuit evolved
from a “primordial soup” of silicon components guided by the principles of
genetic variation and survival of the fittest.

That's nonsense Barbarian.

Nope. The circuit slowly, over time, evolved a better solution. In fact it was a better solution than scientists could design. Somehow, it evolved a solution that uses fewer components than anyone has been able to design; they don't even know how it works.

This is why engineers are now using genetic algorithms instead of design for very complex problems. Evolution is more efficient than design. God was right again.

 

[2tim_215]

Nope. The circuit slowly, over time, evolved a better solution. In fact it was a better solution than scientists could design. Somehow, it evolved a solution that uses fewer components than anyone has been able to design; they don't even know how it works.

This is why engineers are now using genetic algorithms instead of design for very complex problems. Evolution is more efficient than design. God was right again.

You put together a lot of good information to support your arguments Barbarian but all those items were originally designed by humans and genetics were also studied by humans. The application was also created by humans and the improvements made to existing designs. It's called Stepwise Refinement in Engineering circles and really has nothing to do with evolution unless you want to say that man's increase in knowledge is evolution, much different from the standard definition, whatever that is. It seems to keep changing over the years.

 

[The Barbarian]

You put together a lot of good information to support your arguments Barbarian but all those items were originally designed by humans and genetics were also studied by humans. The application was also created by humans and the improvements made to existing designs. It's called Stepwise Refinement in Engineering circles

It's called a "genetic algorithm" in engineering circles. It copies evolution in order to produce a more efficient solution:

Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Engineering Optimization
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search and optimization method which works by mimicking the evolutionary principles and chromosomal processing in natural genetics. A GA begins its search with a random set of solutions usually coded in binary string structures. Every solution is assigned a fitness which is directly related to the objective function of the search and optimization problem. Thereafter, the population of solutions is modified to a new population by applying three operators similar to natural genetic operators-reproduction, crossover, and mutation. A GA works iteratively by successively applying these three operators in each generation till a termination criterion is satisfied. Over the past couple of decades and more, GAs have been successfully applied to a wide variety of engineering problems, because of their simplicity, global perspective, and inherent parallel processing.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39930-8_2

and really has nothing to do with evolution

See above. Random mutation and natural selection work better than design for many complex problems. Engineers are just taking the lead from evolution. In some cases, such as the one I cited, they don't even know for sure how the optimized system works.

unless you want to say that man's increase in knowledge is evolution, much different from the standard definition, whatever that is. It seems to keep changing over the years.

I've been in biology for about a half a century and it hasn't changed in that time. So maybe it's not just engineering you're missing.

 

[dcalling]

You're assuming something that doesn't exist. This idea that there is some kind of invisible barrier which stops living things from.mutating beyond a certain point.

If such a thing truly existed, then we wouldn't have things like cancer.

And if we take the following example,

https://www.google.com/search?q=ele...d=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=N5u3cPLXiEb7eM:
View attachment 234617
View attachment 234616

View attachment 234602

Such a belief that evolution were not true, would be to assume that God created, then erased, then created and then reased and then created and then erased, over and over and over and over and over again, millions of times.

As if God created the paleomastodon and was like "Ya know what, I just dont think this creation is "Good" enough, so im going to erase it and create the almost identical yet slightly different gomphotherium.

First, such barrier definitely exists, as we seen from the long term e.coli tests, or the most recent article I quoted.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html#jCp


And I also said God designed us with parameters, i.e. like configuration changes, that the DNA is flexible in mutation to certain degree. However beyond that barrier the mutation will be harmful and future mutation would stop (i.e. in your cancer example, that is most likely mutation beyond the barrier and hence future mutation is no longer possible, so your example actually helps my case

 

[dcalling]

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?



Modern humans and Neandertals, for example. While most geneticists think that they are close enough to us to qualify as members of the same species, others think they should be classified as a separate species:
According to a new study that analyzed different aspects of the nasal complex in Neanderthals and other later Pleistocene fossils from Europe and Africa, Neanderthals were a distinct species of the genus Homo, and not a subspecies of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) as some scientists thought.
http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...eanderthals-separate-human-species-02284.html

So my study quoted is on DNA, the building blocks (i.e. like coding in software engineering), and your study is on nasal structures, it is like looking at two CPUs, asserting that they are of the same design because of the shapes, and yet one is CISC and the other is RISC

You were surprised to find that there was such a large number of transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, for example.

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



Komatiite did just that. You ignored it.

I already replied to you and to him with my arguments, you either ignored it or didn't understand it, I will post again.

 

[dcalling]

Thats right ^

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.



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

First, the author answered that question with this "and Yet, The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

He stopped at that because he is obviousely someone who believe in evolution. But the above quote have very big holes that is easy to spot, and we all know it, I said it before too and you and @The Barbarian both ignored it.
If the species only lasts a certain amount of time before it evolves or extinct, how come we have those "living fossils" that existed for millions of years? why did they change so little?

You only need one counter example to show some statement is false.

 

[The Barbarian]

First, the author answered that question with this "and Yet, The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

That seems odd, given Darwin's statement:
The forms which possess in some considerable degree the character of species, but which are go closely similar to other forms, or are so closely linked to them by intermediate gradations, that naturalists do not like to rank them as distinct species, are in several respects the most important for us. We have every reason to believe that many of these doubtful and closely allied forms have permanently retained their characters for a long time; for as long, as far as we know, as have good and true species. Practically, when a naturalist can unite by means of intermediate links any two forms, he treats the one as a variety of the other; ranking the most common, but sometimes the one first described, as the species, and the other as the variety. But cases of great difficulty, which I will not here enumerate, sometimes arise in deciding whether or not to rank one form as a variety of another, even when they are closely connected by intermediate links; nor will the commonly-assumed hybrid nature of the intermediate forms always remove the difficulty. In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.


Hence, in determining whether a form should be ranked as a species or a variety, the opinion of naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience seems the only guide to follow. We must, however, in many cases, decide by a majority of naturalists, for few well-marked and well-known varieties can be named which have not been ranked as species by at least some competent judges.
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species Chapter II, Variation Under Nature

He stopped at that because he is obviousely someone who believe in evolution. But the above quote have very big holes that is easy to spot, and we all know it, I said it before too and you and @The Barbarian both ignored it.

The obvious correlation between the apparent age of most (but not all) species alive today, with the extinctions of the Pleistocene is only made more telling by the fact that many other species are much, much older.

That means that while most living species evolved after the last extinction episode, some of them evolved much earlier. This is, as you now seem to realize, completely at odds with any sort of YE creationist belief.

If the species only lasts a certain amount of time before it evolves or extinct,

That's a bad assumption. Species last as long as they fit well to their environments. When that changes, extinctions and new species tend to occur. The Pleistocene was the last notable example. Again, those exceptions are clear evidence that YE creationism is false.

how come we have those "living fossils" that existed for millions of years?

The selective pressures for them didn't change much over that time.

why did they change so little?

As Darwin pointed out,natural selection would prevent a well-fitted population in a constant environment from evolving much. And as you see, even one such case would invalidate the creationist belief.

You only need one counter example to show some statement is false.

Yep.

 

[2tim_215]

It's called a "genetic algorithm" in engineering circles. It copies evolution in order to produce a more efficient solution:

Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Engineering Optimization
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search and optimization method which works by mimicking the evolutionary principles and chromosomal processing in natural genetics. A GA begins its search with a random set of solutions usually coded in binary string structures. Every solution is assigned a fitness which is directly related to the objective function of the search and optimization problem. Thereafter, the population of solutions is modified to a new population by applying three operators similar to natural genetic operators-reproduction, crossover, and mutation. A GA works iteratively by successively applying these three operators in each generation till a termination criterion is satisfied. Over the past couple of decades and more, GAs have been successfully applied to a wide variety of engineering problems, because of their simplicity, global perspective, and inherent parallel processing.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39930-8_2



See above. Random mutation and natural selection work better than design for many complex problems. Engineers are just taking the lead from evolution. In some cases, such as the one I cited, they don't even know for sure how the optimized system works.



I've been in biology for about a half a century and it hasn't changed in that time. So maybe it's not just engineering you're missing.

Algorithms are mathematical and used in software development. How you call this evolution is beyond me and yes, in software development/engineering it's usually an iterative process. Just another example of evolution weenies trying to apply man's increased knowledge to solve today's problems. Just making something run faster doesn't change the fact that those things already previously existed and leveraging the original design.

 

[The Barbarian]

So my study quoted is on DNA, the building blocks (i.e. like coding in software engineering), and your study is on

Whether or not humans and Neandertals were the same species. Your argument assumes that species are easy to distinguish and are well-separated from each other. But here we are, still unable to show whether or not modern humans and Neandertals are one species, or two.

Let's go to a different example:
An ancestral population of salamanders from what is now Northern California or Oregon was supposed to have spread southward, and then split, with one group expanding its range down the Coast Range, and the other moving east and then expanding southward down along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. The intervening “center” of the ring was the Central Valley of California, which is grassy, dry, and uninhabitable by these plethodontid salamanders, which need moist habitat. The species thus formed a classic ring, differentiating genetically as both branches moved south. In fact, they became different in color and morphology, and were classified into seven subspecies, as shown in the diagram below.


The ring closed when the ranges encountered each other in southern California, where the subspecies E. eschsholtzii eschscholtzii encountered the long-diverged subspecies E. e. klauberii. These two did not interbreed in nature, and so behaved as different species. Genetic studies demonstrated a long divergence between these, attesting to the “move around the ring” scenario, but also to a lesser divergence between adjacent populations. The ring is shown in the following diagram, along with the distribution of subspecies:

Do these salamanders comprise one species or two? And what factors made you decide?

 

[The Barbarian]

Algorithms are mathematical and used in software development.

Actually, algorithms are much older than software. A recipe, for example, is an algorithm. As you just learned, a genetic algorithm is a means of applying evolutionary processes to solving engineering problems.

How you call this evolution is beyond me

It uses random variation and natural selection to optimize fitness.
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search and optimization method which works by mimicking the evolutionary principles and chromosomal processing in natural genetics. A GA begins its search with a random set of solutions usually coded in binary string structures. Every solution is assigned a fitness which is directly related to the objective function of the search and optimization problem. Thereafter, the population of solutions is modified to a new population by applying three operators similar to natural genetic operators-reproduction, crossover, and mutation. A GA works iteratively by successively applying these three operators in each generation till a termination criterion is satisfied.

Just another example of evolution weenies trying to apply man's increased knowledge to solve today's problems.

Evolution just works better than design for complicated problems. That's why engineers use it.

 

[dcalling]

Whether or not humans and Neandertals were the same species. Your argument assumes that species are easy to distinguish and are well-separated from each other. But here we are, still unable to show whether or not modern humans and Neandertals are one species, or two.

Let's go to a different example:
An ancestral population of salamanders from what is now Northern California or Oregon was supposed to have spread southward, and then split, with one group expanding its range down the Coast Range, and the other moving east and then expanding southward down along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. The intervening “center” of the ring was the Central Valley of California, which is grassy, dry, and uninhabitable by these plethodontid salamanders, which need moist habitat. The species thus formed a classic ring, differentiating genetically as both branches moved south. In fact, they became different in color and morphology, and were classified into seven subspecies, as shown in the diagram below.


The ring closed when the ranges encountered each other in southern California, where the subspecies E. eschsholtzii eschscholtzii encountered the long-diverged subspecies E. e. klauberii. These two did not interbreed in nature, and so behaved as different species. Genetic studies demonstrated a long divergence between these, attesting to the “move around the ring” scenario, but also to a lesser divergence between adjacent populations. The ring is shown in the following diagram, along with the distribution of subspecies:

Do these salamanders comprise one species or two? And what factors made you decide?

This is the issue. Right now we classify things based on how things look. What we really should do is do more research, check their DNA, and find out how they are related by DNA, from how similar they are, to if there is a natural mutation path to each other. It is like coding, where people who don't know what's going on asking for how things should look and feel, and the engineers decide what libraries to use, and the exact RGB colors to use.