Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

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.

That's how it is today. The "living fossils" are organisms that have existed in relatively constant environments. However, even these have changed over time. Modern coelacanths, for example, are quite different from ancient coelacanths.

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.

They have, but in some extreme cases, they've changed very little.

Yet, today we know that creatures can be hybrids and evolved rapidly over a few months.

Under the right conditions, evolution can proceed fairly rapidly. For example, a species of lizard evolved a new digestive organ in just a few decades after moving into a different environment.

We have genetic engineering and epigenetic inheritance where they evolve even more rapidly.

Epigenetic changes don't seem to persist over more than a few generations, so it's not really much of a factor in speciation, if it matters at all. And human intervention has always been known to produce faster change than natural selection. Darwin wrote about it in his book.

This doesn't follow Darwin's evolution of changes over time and tree of life.

Which of the four basic points of his theory do you think don't apply to such things? I can't think of any.

Instead of a tree, it seems there are bushes of life.

Darwin's diagrams look more like bushes than trees, so that fits pretty well. The notion of it as a tree comes from Linnaeus, who first noted that life can be fitted into a diagram that looks like a family tree. DNA analysis has conformed Linnaeus' observation. But he didn't even consider evolution. Darwin explained why that tree exists, and genetics confirms his discovery.

It doesn't follow slow natural selection or slow mutation.

Not all evolutionary change is by natural selection. As Darwin pointed out, random variation will occur in the absence of strong selective forces.

It doesn't necessarily mean that we have to scrap Darwin's evolution, but it appears that he was wrong.

The four basic points of his theory have been confirmed. However, he was wrong in a number of things, such as the nature of inheritance. Modern evolutionary theory includes genetics in addition to Darwin's discoveries.

 

[The Barbarian]

Greetings brother! You are correct, The "T" in ToE is there for a reason.

A lot of people misunderstand what "theory" means. It is an idea or group of idea that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Theories are stronger than laws, because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain things. Hence, Newton's theory of gravitation is more powerful and useful than Kepler's laws, even though they are about the same phenomena.

There's a number of fundamental difficulties with evolution.

Maybe it would be good for you to tell us about them. What do you think they are, and what is the evidence for your belief?

 

[NobleMouse]

A lot of people misunderstand what "theory" means. It is an idea or group of idea that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Theories are stronger than laws, because while laws predict things, theories predict and explain things. Hence, Newton's theory of gravitation is more powerful and useful than Kepler's laws, even though they are about the same phenomena.

I'm not sure I can go along with this idea that theories are stronger than laws. A "law" is understood and agreed upon, it works every time, is observable in action, it is a foundation upon which assumptions and theories can be built. A theory is an educated guess, supported by varying degrees of support/evidence, and in the case of ToE has never been observed, cannot be reproduced/demonstrated, etc.... It's nowhere in the ballpark of theories as Dr. Berlinski put, as with the "hard sciences" - physics, quantum mechanics, etc... To say theories are stronger than laws just comes across as another logical fallacy being employed here to help pave the way, set the stage, for accepting a theory that is not demonstrable, sorry brother.

What is observable as actual evidence is that no matter what is done in a lab or observed in nature, created kinds can and do have variation, but never actually change into a different kind - finches remain finches regardless of beak size (and apparently this oscillates where if their diet can make the beak more robust but that beak will also get smaller again if the diet doesn't necessitate a more robust beak), ecoli remains ecoli regardless of ability to live on citrate, fruit flies forced to mutate an additional 2 wings remain fruit flies (albeit, handicapped fruit flies since there are no muscles attached to the additional wings) - period. This is what is observable now, this is all that has ever happened in my lifetime and your lifetime, and this is nowhere unequivocally contradicted in the fossil record. This is why life forms in the Cambrian are recognizable and classifiable... they still exist today, these kinds of life have never become anything else... there are still mollusks, still the same kinds today.

Maybe it would be good for you to tell us about them. What do you think they are, and what is the evidence for your belief?

No, it would be good to watch the videos I embedded in my post, that is what I referenced and that is where the difficulties and logical fallacies are discussed. I'm not going to waste time scripting out what these two gentlemen spoke of in the videos, but anyone here is welcome to watch them at their leisure. Any theory that has never been observed, cannot be repeated, and not even modeled in a computer simulation to produce the effects we actually see in life only shows evidence of a philosophy at work, not actual truth. If you want truth on the topic of origins, go to God's word - the originator of life.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure I can go along with this idea that theories are stronger than laws.

Doesn't matter. They are stronger than laws because they are able to explain phenomena. That's critical in science, as you'll see in a moment.

A "law" is understood and agreed upon, it works every time, is observable in action, it is a foundation upon which assumptions and theories can be built.

It is what we have before theories explain things. Kepler's laws predicted planetary motion, but did not explain why it happened. So these are just laws, not theories. Newton's theory of gravitation explained why this happens, and so moved it from just being about planets, but applied it to moons, stars, and apples falling from trees. This is why theories are stronger than mere laws. Laws predict things. Theories predict and explain, and this is why they are so important in science. They are the basis for understanding.

A theory is an educated guess, supported by varying degrees of support/evidence,

No. You're confusing theories and hypotheses. A hypothesis is a prediction as to what will happen and why it will happen. When hypotheses are verified by repeated tests, they become theories. Only when we have sufficient evidence to conclude that it's true, will a hypothesis become a theory.

and in the case of ToE has never been observed,

Undergraduates demonstrate it every year. Which of Darwin's four points of natural selection do you suppose hasn't been observed?

cannot be reproduced/demonstrated, etc.... It's nowhere in the ballpark of theories as Dr. Berlinski put, as with the "hard sciences" - physics, quantum mechanics, etc...

Berlinski is always befuddled when someone points out to him that we know why natural selection works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works, or what the basis of the wave/particule dichotomy in light might be.

To say theories are stronger than laws just comes across as another logical fallacy

See above. Just remember: "Laws predict, theories predict and explain." And you won't have trouble understanding why theories are stronger than laws.

What is observable as actual evidence is that no matter what is done in a lab or observed in nature, created kinds can and do have variation, but never actually change into a different kind - finches remain finches regardless of beak size (and apparently this oscillates where if their diet can make the beak more robust but that beak will also get smaller again if the diet doesn't necessitate a more robust beak), ecoli remains ecoli regardless of ability to live on citrate, fruit flies forced to mutate an additional 2 wings remain fruit flies (albeit, handicapped fruit flies since there are no muscles attached to the additional wings) - period. This is what is observable now, this is all that has ever happened in my lifetime and your lifetime, and this is nowhere unequivocally contradicted in the fossil record. This is why life forms in the Cambrian are recognizable and classifiable... they still exist today, these kinds of life have never become anything else... there are still mollusks, still the same kinds today.

No, it would be good to watch the videos I embedded in my post

If you don't understand them well enough to explain them, what makes you think they're right?

I'm not going to waste time scripting out what these two gentlemen spoke of in the videos,

I suspect that it would be a waste of time. But if you think anything therein is worth discussing, please bring it up and we'll talk about it.

[quote\Any theory that has never been observed, cannot be repeated, and not even modeled in a computer simulation to produce the effects we actually see in life...

... wouldn't be a theory, would it? Evolution, for example, is repeatedly observed, can be repeated in lab experiments, and has been successfully modeled to predict future evolution. Even more impressive, engineers have started using evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design.

Darwn, by the way, agreed with you about the origin of life; he just assumed God did it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Doesn't matter. They are stronger than laws because they are able to explain phenomena. That's critical in science, as you'll see in a moment.

Thanks for your perspective.

It is what we have before theories explain things.

This affirms what I was saying. Laws are the foundation, theories are like the walls and roof. Theories are not stronger than the laws upon which they build, the strength of any building is the foundation upon which it is built, not the other way around. Still not buying, and is irrelevant to proving evolution to be true. Your arguments here to appeal to me as a bible-believing Christian and as a logical/rational thinking person fall upon deaf ears because now we're already diving into conjecture and your evolutionary bias, which is not based upon actual observable evidence. Being clear having said that, this is not an attack against your personal character brother, but the "theory" of evolution itself.

No. You're confusing theories and hypotheses. A hypothesis is a prediction as to what will happen and why it will happen. When hypotheses are verified by repeated tests, they become theories. Only when we have sufficient evidence to conclude that it's true, will a hypothesis become a theory.

No, clearly theories can also include educated guesses and in the case of ToE is almost solely that. Suggesting otherwise would be mislabeling. If we say that theory = irrefutable truth, then evolution is not even a theory (much less, a fact... unless I qualify it as a false fact). E = MC^2 and here in this context, this is to say [E]volution = [M]uch [C]onjecture ^2.

Undergraduates demonstrate it every year. Which of Darwin's four points of natural selection do you suppose hasn't been observed?

Nope. Try again. NOBODY (much less some undergraduate) has ever demonstrated wholesale evolution where one kind becomes a new kind - period... not in nature, not in a laboratory, not in a computer simulation. What you're talking about is either small variations within a kind or something that is largely build on assumptions and conjecture. All that combined, does not make truth - and you know it. Evolution is a purported notion that wholesale changes happen with absolutely no evidence that anything other than small variations within the created kinds is all that ever happens - you know this to be true as well.

Berlinski is always befuddled when someone points out to him that we know why natural selection works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works, or what the basis of the wave/particule dichotomy in light might be.

Gravity can be observed (a huge one-up on evolution), so not an apples-to-apples analogy. I'll move onto the other comments you've provided in hopes of finding actual evidence for evolution...

See above. Just remember: "Laws predict, theories predict and explain." And you won't have trouble understanding why theories are stronger than laws.

Still no evidence for evolution so far, getting closer to the bottom of the post...

... wouldn't be a theory, would it? Evolution, for example, is repeatedly observed, can be repeated in lab experiments, and has been successfully modeled to predict future evolution. Even more impressive, engineers have started using evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design.

Evolution has never been observed even 1 time. It cannot be repeated in lab experiments, and has never been successfully modeled to predict current life let alone future life. In fact, to suggest it can be modeled to predict future life - that's an immediate red flag. Engineers aren't using evolution to solve problems, they may model designs off of what God has created in life already, but you're again applying a philosophical mindset and paradigm to a context that doesn't make sense. Engineers aren't making biological life forms that will "evolve" into a completely new kind of life form - what a laugh.

Darwn, by the way, agreed with you about the origin of life; he just assumed God did it.

And that, in short is the entire reconciliation process of many: "Evolution is real and oh I'll differentiate myself from the atheistic (God-not-needed) version of the story by suffixing the words 'and that's the way God did it'". This is like some kind of scape goat to not have to support evolution by way of observation or repeat/demonstrate in a lab/model, and equally to not have any commitment to God's word regarding creation - just a nebulous spiritual anecdote of "that's the way God did it." Not according to His word (regardless of what version you read or what language you read it), and not according to what is observably and overwhelmingly true. If we keep lowering the bar of what is true, what is fact, we can say almost anything is true. Bottom line, wholesale evolution where new kinds of life are created has never been observed, reproduced, or modeled. Whatever you want to call evolution is fine, but "true" it is not.... and we're at the bottom of the post.

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks for your perspective.
This affirms what I was saying. Laws are the foundation, theories are like the walls and roof.

Actually, questions are the foundation. Hypotheses are build on questions, and theories are hypotheses that have been validated by evidence. Laws are generalizations that have been show to accurately predict things.

As you see, theories accurately predict things but explain why. The important thing is that theories then show applicability in other things, expanding knowledge. Which laws do not.

Still not buying,

Doestn't matter. That's how it works. Demonstrably so.

and is irrelevant to proving evolution to be true.

Actually, science never 'proves' anything. Being inductive, science merely observes the game and infers the rules from watching what happens.

Your arguments here to appeal to me as a bible-believing Christian

It's not a problem for most Bible-believing Christians. So that isn't working for you. Most of the world's Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.

and as a logical/rational thinking person fall upon deaf ears because now we're already diving into conjecture and your evolutionary bias

As you just learned, Darwin's theory and modern evolutionary theory are based on observation and facts. No point in denying it. Even honest YE creationists admit that much.

No, clearly theories can also include educated guesses

Nope. You've confused "theory" and "hypothesis" again. A hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for a phenomenon, based on previous knowledge. Hypotheses become theories when they are validated by confirmed predictions. Would you like to learn about some of those confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory?

If we say that theory = irrefutable truth, then evolution is not even a theory

Properly speaking, evolution is a phenomenon. There is a theory of evolution that explains it. However, you've made a larger error here. No scientific theory is irrefutable truth, because it is inductive.

Nope. Try again. NOBODY (much less some undergraduate) has ever demonstrated wholesale evolution

It's done every year. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. What do you think it means?

Gravity can be observed

Oh, you're thinking of microgravity. Things falling from trees, planets orbiting the Sun, stuff like that. No one doubts microgravity. But the idea that gravity controls the movements of galaxies, or the formation of stars, that's macrogravity, and no one has seen that process completed. But Gravity has never been demonstrated, such as the formation of a mature new star from a cloud of gas.

(Hint: evolution is a change in allele frequency over time)

As you now realize Evolution is constantly being observed. To argue that it might work a little, but can't work on scales beyond a human lifetime, is to deny that giant redwood trees can grow from seeds.

The growth of a huge redwood tree cannot be repeated in lab experiments.

And computer modeling can easily demonstrate macroevolution. The Nilsson-Pelger model, for example demonstrates the ease with which a complex eye can evolve. Most interesting thing is, it actually generates the intermediate steps we see in various organisms. Would you like to learn more about that?

Engineers aren't using evolution to solve problems

They are. Genetic algorithms use natural selection to optimize design.

they may model designs off of what God has created in life already,

That's what natural selection is. God came up with it long before humans realized that it works better than design. He is God, after all.

Engineers aren't making biological life forms

Their great discovery was that natural selection works in other things as well. It can, for example, optimize a diesel engine beyond what any designer can do. Yes, they copied God's method. But it works.

And that, in short is the entire reconciliation process of many: "Evolution is real and oh I'll differentiate myself from the atheistic (God-not-needed) version of the story by suffixing the words 'and that's the way God did it'".

Newton believed God did gravity, too. The thing is, neither physics nor biology requires that you admit that God did it. But of course, He did.

The evidence for common descent is vast and diversified. The first evidence was found by a person who didn't even think about evolution. Linnaeus, the originator of modern binomial nomenclature, discovered that all living things, but not nonliving things, could fit into a family tree.

As time went on and more and more transitional forms were discovered, the bush filled in and the links between major groups were discovered. Even more convincing, we never find a link where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be one. It's always nicely consistent with common descent.

And then as more and more DNA analyses became available, those data also showed the same family tree and Linnaeus and transitional forms showed. So it's impossible for a rational person to look at the data and deny what they show.

 

[NobleMouse]

Actually, questions are the foundation. Hypotheses are build on questions, and theories are hypotheses that have been validated by evidence. Laws are generalizations that have been show to accurately predict things.

As you see, theories accurately predict things but explain why. The important thing is that theories then show applicability in other things, expanding knowledge. Which laws do not.



Doestn't matter. That's how it works. Demonstrably so.



Actually, science never 'proves' anything. Being inductive, science merely observes the game and infers the rules from watching what happens.



It's not a problem for most Bible-believing Christians. So that isn't working for you. Most of the world's Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.



As you just learned, Darwin's theory and modern evolutionary theory are based on observation and facts. No point in denying it. Even honest YE creationists admit that much.



Nope. You've confused "theory" and "hypothesis" again. A hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for a phenomenon, based on previous knowledge. Hypotheses become theories when they are validated by confirmed predictions. Would you like to learn about some of those confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory?



Properly speaking, evolution is a phenomenon. There is a theory of evolution that explains it. However, you've made a larger error here. No scientific theory is irrefutable truth, because it is inductive.



It's done every year. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means. What do you think it means?



Oh, you're thinking of microgravity. Things falling from trees, planets orbiting the Sun, stuff like that. No one doubts microgravity. But the idea that gravity controls the movements of galaxies, or the formation of stars, that's macrogravity, and no one has seen that process completed. But Gravity has never been demonstrated, such as the formation of a mature new star from a cloud of gas.

(Hint: evolution is a change in allele frequency over time)

As you now realize Evolution is constantly being observed. To argue that it might work a little, but can't work on scales beyond a human lifetime, is to deny that giant redwood trees can grow from seeds.

The growth of a huge redwood tree cannot be repeated in lab experiments.

And computer modeling can easily demonstrate macroevolution. The Nilsson-Pelger model, for example demonstrates the ease with which a complex eye can evolve. Most interesting thing is, it actually generates the intermediate steps we see in various organisms. Would you like to learn more about that?



They are. Genetic algorithms use natural selection to optimize design.



That's what natural selection is. God came up with it long before humans realized that it works better than design. He is God, after all.



Their great discovery was that natural selection works in other things as well. It can, for example, optimize a diesel engine beyond what any designer can do. Yes, they copied God's method. But it works.



Newton believed God did gravity, too. The thing is, neither physics nor biology requires that you admit that God did it. But of course, He did.

The evidence for common descent is vast and diversified. The first evidence was found by a person who didn't even think about evolution. Linnaeus, the originator of modern binomial nomenclature, discovered that all living things, but not nonliving things, could fit into a family tree.

As time went on and more and more transitional forms were discovered, the bush filled in and the links between major groups were discovered. Even more convincing, we never find a link where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be one. It's always nicely consistent with common descent.

And then as more and more DNA analyses became available, those data also showed the same family tree and Linnaeus and transitional forms showed. So it's impossible for a rational person to look at the data and deny what they show.

I'll go ahead and wrap this up: Transitional forms are built on conjecture and are not irrefutable (unequivocal) examples of evolution. The videos in my post even talked about one of the more popular icons used as a link between reptiles and birds and now is largely considered by biologists to be just a bird.

What 'transitional fossils' prove is: fitting evidence to a presuppositional bias. In a 2009 study by Pew Research, nearly 50% of scientists surveyed indicated they did not believe in God or any kind of supreme being (about 66% do no believe in the God of Christianity):

Scientists and Belief

For the 50% of scientists that say there is no god and would use the big bang and evolution to support their position as "evidence" of this assertion, are we to conclude that all of these scientists are just idiots?? Well the obvious answer is no. Their presuppositional bias is that there is no god and guess what (grin), the evidence supports their position. Same thing with transitional fossils, since the presuppositional belief is that evolution happens, the fossil record is viewed under this lens. Before evolution as a concept, scientists looked at the structure of the human arm and hand, the fin of a fish or whale, and the wing of a bird or bat... which all do have common characteristics, and they would have concluded a common designer, not common descent. The story you told about Linnaeus and how more transitional forms were found only supports that the presuppositional bias is true - someone got the idea and what actually did evolve was a philosophy of how to interpret evidence and piece together a story under that philosophy.

Further, the Nilsson-Pelger model makes assumptions that can in no way be consistent with the darwinian model of random mutation + natural selection - just as Berlinski spoke of in the video - we can make assumptions (as this experiment does all over the place, but have no way of knowing whether the simulation actually models reality). Also, this is still conjecture, because the model was based on an eye. AN EYE. Not a complete organism. Let me be as clear as I can: a computer simulation making assumptions that are not consistent with the darwinian model of evolution of an eye DOES NOT demonstrate macroevolution.

Lastly, DNA/genetic analysis is a repeat of the "transitional" fossils - just finding evidence that fits the presuppositional bias - scientists already believed evolution was true before technology caught up to allow for the study of DNA - there is nothing that irrefutably discounts the possibility that God fully created all the kinds during days 3, 5, and 6 of creation (including humans) with common building blocks. Now clearly you are committed to the evolutionary paradigm, but it is as equally clear you do not have real evidence for this position - you've responded 3 times since my original post and all 3 times have not provided real evidence beyond your bias, conjecture, and bringing up tertiary items like microgravity and distinguishing between hypotheses and theories. To that I'll say I always appreciate your perspective, insight and wisdom brother, but I will continue to disagree on this topic of evolution. Thank you as always for your time - this will be my last response on the topic so as not to continue belaboring the point of an apparent lack of real evidence supporting evolution. Feel free to provide said evidence at any time, you'll be the first!

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll go ahead and wrap this up: Transitional forms are built on conjecture

You've been misled about that. Transitional forms are organisms with apomorphic features of two different groups. They are, as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, strong evidence for evolution. Would you like to see why he admits that?

The videos in my post even talked about one of the more popular icons used as a link between reptiles and birds and now is largely considered by biologists to be just a bird.

Well, some creationists have said it's a lizard with feathers glued on it, but fact is, it's not a bird because it lacks important features found in birds. Here's the skeleton of Archeaopteryx. Notice it has some features found only in dinosaurs, and some found only in birds, and some found in both.

As you can see, it actually has more dinosaur characters than avian ones. Which of these tells you that it's a bird? And why is it transitional between dinosaurs and birds, having characters of both?

Your presuppositional bias has caused you to deny what you plainly see.

Further, the Nilsson-Pelger model makes assumptions that can in no way be consistent with the darwinian model of random mutation + natural selection

No, that's wrong. It assumes random mutation and natural selection. Exactly what Darwinian theory says.

Also, this is still conjecture,

No, that's wrong, too. Turns out, the simulation predicts various transitional stages, which turn out to actually exist in reality. Confirmation by reality is very strong evidence for a theory.

Given that this program assumes only random mutation and natural selection, it's closely aligned with Darwinian theory. The fact that the intermediate stages it predicts can actually be found in nature is powerful confirmation that the theory is correct.

Lastly, DNA/genetic analysis is a repeat of the "transitional" fossils

Confirmation of the fact. Evolutionary theory predicted that there would be genetic relationships between closely related organisms. That prediction has been confirmed. And we can check the validity by comparing DNA of organisms of known descent. That's been confirmed, too.

As is common with creationists with a presuppositional bias, you have repeatedly denied the evidence shown to you. Rarely is a committed YE creationist brought around to accept evidence. It's not for you, really. It's for those with an open mind, who will follow the truth wherever it might lead.

You've just helped us in the process.

 

[jamesbond007]

That's how it is today. The "living fossils" are organisms that have existed in relatively constant environments. However, even these have changed over time. Modern coelacanths, for example, are quite different from ancient coelacanths.



They have, but in some extreme cases, they've changed very little.

It's difficult to argue against slow, i.e. millions of years of evolution, since it's gradual and we can't see it happen in our lifetimes. So, aren't we assuming because we do see changes such as the coel that these changes took millions of years? That is, these living fossils changed if any very, very slow? Moreover, with coel, it was thought to be the transitional fossil from fish to tetrapod. Studying the modern coel found that their fins were still fins. Thus, the transitional fossil was changed to tiktaalik.

The above thinking precludes us from looking for these changes. Maybe we weren't looking in the right places. We know today that rapid evolution takes place due to urban environments being built, in response to genetic engineering and antibiotics.

What we know is scientists were hesitant to challenge Darwin's ideas when they were found to be contradictory, but over time they have found that Darwin was wrong such as competition by similar species for the same food.

One rapid evolution we have noticed is the ground finch and the medium finch in Galapagos Islands.

There is rapid evolution in the natural environment with guppies.

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Other examples
6 Animals That Are Rapidly Evolving

Under the right conditions, evolution can proceed fairly rapidly. For example, a species of lizard evolved a new digestive organ in just a few decades after moving into a different environment.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about above. Today, more people do not believe that we do not see evolution, so they started looking for rapid changes. One can't have their cake and eat it, too. Previously, living fossils were super slow evolution. Now presented with environmental changes that evolution happens rapidly that goes against changes over long time. They want to look for factors that Darwin never considered or couldn't consider instead of saying Darwin was wrong.

Epigenetic changes don't seem to persist over more than a few generations, so it's not really much of a factor in speciation, if it matters at all. And human intervention has always been known to produce faster change than natural selection. Darwin wrote about it in his book.

More of the same.

Which of the four basic points of his theory do you think don't apply to such things? I can't think of any.

Changes over long time. Evolution happens rapidly.

The other is his tree of life. TOL is being challenged by bushes of life. Bushes of life challenges that we come from one ancestor.

One other change being argued doesn't relate to Darwin, but Charles Lyell I think. It's undisturbed layers vs disturbed layers of the earth. The fossils that we are finding in undisturbed layers show disturbed layers.

Darwin's diagrams look more like bushes than trees, so that fits pretty well. The notion of it as a tree comes from Linnaeus, who first noted that life can be fitted into a diagram that looks like a family tree. DNA analysis has conformed Linnaeus' observation. But he didn't even consider evolution. Darwin explained why that tree exists, and genetics confirms his discovery.

Here's what I got for bushes of life. What do you have?

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-tree-life-bush.html

"“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

 

[The Barbarian]

It's difficult to argue against slow, i.e. millions of years of evolution, since it's gradual and we can't see it happen in our lifetimes.

Pretty much like it's difficult to argue that giant redwoods grow from seeds. No, we can't actually watch it happen ("AHA!" shouts the redwood doubter) but it turns out that there's lots of evidence for it happening. So why do creationists admit that redwoods grow from seeds, but refuse to admit long periods of evolution? I think I know why.

So, aren't we assuming because we do see changes such as the coel that these changes took millions of years?

Nope. Evidence. Not assumptions.

That is, these living fossils changed if any very, very slow?

Well, some change. Modern coelacanths are rather different than ancient ones. The genus and two species today is not found in the fossil record. But the change had been slower than most lines.

Moreover, with coel, it was thought to be the transitional fossil from fish to tetrapod.

No. It doesn't have legs. However, there are fossils of closely related fish that do have legs.

Studying the modern coel found that their fins were still fins.

Yep. This is why no one saw it as a transitional.

Thus, the transitional fossil was changed to tiktaalik.

That came a long time after the fact. The first known transitional for tetrapods, Icthyostega, had been discovered long before.

The above thinking precludes us from looking for these changes.

As you just learned, you didn't understand the thinking. The existence of fish-like tetrapods led to the prediction of fish with feet. And later, as in Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, etc., that prediction was validated.

Maybe we weren't looking in the right places.

Yep. Finding the deposits of the right age is important. Whales, for example, weren't very well understood until people found the right age and locations. Then rather quickly, a host of transitional whales were found.

We know today that rapid evolution takes place due to urban environments being built, in response to genetic engineering and antibiotics.

Evolution goes on constantly. But the evolution of new taxa and new structures isn't as fast. Scientists were rather surprised to find a population of lizards that evolved a new digestive organ in a few decades. Usually, it moves much slower than that.

What we know is scientists were hesitant to challenge Darwin's ideas when they were found to be contradictory

No, that's wrong, too. Darwin's opinion on heredity, for example, were quickly dropped when genes were discovered.

but over time they have found that Darwin was wrong such as competition by similar species for the same food.

He was right about that, unless the "similar species" have different lifestyles. For example, you won't typically find more than one species of wolf in any given area.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I was talking about above. Today, more people do not believe that we do not see evolution, so they started looking for rapid changes.

Darwin also pointed out that evolution would work in every generation. Smaller changes like a millimeter or so in beak size matters and does fluctuate as he wrote.

The other is his tree of life.

Actually, it's from Linnaeus. Who wasn't even thinking of evolution. Not surprisingly, genetic analyses show pretty much the same thing as Linnaeus.

TOL is being challenged by bushes of life.

Darwin wrote about speciation via hybridization. He just didn't see it as a common form of speciation. The idea of "lateral gene transfer" is rather old, not much younger than the understanding of genes. Would you like to see?

One other change being argued doesn't relate to Darwin, but Charles Lyell I think. It's undisturbed layers vs disturbed layers of the earth. The fossils that we are finding in undisturbed layers show disturbed layers.

Show us that.

 

[Tayla]

Is there are proof of either?

Science can't prove evolution because you can't perform experiments to falsify it. Also, it is merely assumed that all the necessary mutations and gene copy errors occurred in the proper sequence. Evolution is more of a story than a theory. It should be ejected from consideration by science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science can't prove evolution

Science can't prove anything. It's inductive, and so logical certainty is not part of science. However, evolution is directly observed, so there's no question about it being a natural phenomenon.

because you can't perform experiments to falsify it.

Of course there are. For example, if the allele frequencies of a population remained constant as the environment changed, it would falsify evolution. Evolutionary theory (as opposed to the phenomenon) would be even easier to falsify. For example, a mammal with feathers. Or a transitional between trees and birds. Or DNA of a banana being more similar to that of a mammal then any two mammals being similar.

Also, it is merely assumed that all the necessary mutations and gene copy errors occurred in the proper sequence.

That's been directly observed to happen. Would you like to learn about it?

Evolution is more of a story than a theory.

A lot of people don't know what "theory" means in science. When a hypothesis gathers enough evidence to support it, it becomes a theory. A theory is a verified hypothesis.

Since many, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been verified, it's considered a theory. Would you like to see some of the verified predictions?

 

[GenemZ]

Pretty much like it's difficult to argue that giant redwoods grow from seeds. No, we can't actually watch it happen

We can watch a chameleon change colors to match its background. I find it odd that only a few creatures would have evolved this way. And, that the others who can not change color seem to survive just fine.

What is called "evolution" in the creation is nothing more than God showing us that he knows the beginning to the end. God intentionally created animals to change. It was not some mysterious impulse for survival. No more than you can have anything to do with tanning your skin when you stay in the sun. God created the tanning mechanism. Our environment stimulates its action.

The theory of evolution amounts to secular pride wishing to steal from God His glory. Its secular thinking desiring to be seen as a superior intellect over others.... It was invented as a means to fulfill that desire. God gets pushed behind the curtain with evolutionists. But, in a way I can not blame them. For dogmatic religious snobs probably pushed the secularists into such action after being looked down upon by religious non-thinkers. I believe that TOE came about and was ordained to be interjected into history by God, to snap lazy Christians out of their lazy non analytical state of blind acceptance.

God wants believers to reason and THINK. Best way to do it when men have stopped thinking and discovering new areas of truth? Is to throw a skunk into the mix. Make them scramble and to discover things around them, that before the need they were too dull to take notice of. The Word contains answers for questions not yet asked.

 

[The Barbarian]

We can watch a chameleon change colors to match its background. I find it odd that only a few creatures would have evolved this way.

When most people think of colour change, they think of octopuses or chameleons - but the ability to rapidly change colour is surprisingly widespread.


Many species of crustaceans, insects, cephalopods (squid, cuttlefish, octopuses and their relatives), frogs, lizards and fish can change colour.


They all have one thing in common: they are ectotherms (animals that cannot generate their own body heat in the same way as mammals and birds) and only ectotherms have the specialised cells that enable colour change.
How do chameleons and other creatures change colour?

And, that the others who can not change color seem to survive just fine.

Not all animals depend on changing color for camouflage. A surprisingly large number of them do.

What is called "evolution" in the creation is nothing more than God showing us that he knows the beginning to the end.

In a theist's way of thinking, that's what evolution is.

God intentionally created animals to change.

Yep. Darwin's discovery was how surprisingly simple it is. Random change and natural selection.

The theory of evolution amounts to secular pride wishing to steal from God His glory.

No, that's wrong. If you don't think that's an amazing display of God's wisdom and creativity, I don't know what would amaze you.

"God did it" is true. The real glory to God comes when we realize how He did it. I feel sorry for those unable to accept these examples of His power and understanding.

 

[GenemZ]

"God did it" is true. The real glory to God comes when we realize how He did it. I feel sorry for those unable to accept these examples of His power and understanding.

What did you mean when you said... "The real glory to God comes when we realize how He did it?"

How can a mere man know how He did it? Not sure I understand your intent.

 

[The Barbarian]

What did you mean when you said... "The real glory to God comes when we realize how He did it?"

When you study nature and learn something of His creation, you will find that He's much more powerful and wise than most creationists are willing to let Him be.

How can a mere man know how He did it?

He gave us intelligence, curiosity, and left us evidence in the world to know. Obviously, He intended for us to know.

Not sure I understand your intent.

Learn and you will understand.

 

[GenemZ]

When you study nature and learn something of His creation, you will find that He's much more powerful and wise than most creationists are willing to let Him be.

Creationists? Secular evolutionists denigrate God's creation down to random chance and "matter that was always there." That is really ironic, because they usually love to impress and go into great detail about "intricate details" found in the creation... which reveals they have keen perspicacity (that they can turn on and off at will).


When I say "secular evolutionists" I speak of those who refuse to attribute God to the fully functional creation we now find in our universe. God created our horses to be what we find. What he created them to be able to transform into for survival was not by chance, but by God's intent. And, God created separate prehistoric creations for the ears when angels had dominion over this planet. Adam was a Johnny come lately as far as being placed on earth to have dominion over all the animals. Angels preceded man. They had their own times of testings. Their time ended and some were judged. Just like certain men are now being exposed with the freedom God grants them to fight the truth. Man's times of testings, like the angels, will all come to an end as well.

To that statement I will quote you as to how you can know of which I speak.

Learn and you will understand.

I said: "How can a mere man know how He did it?"

You said:

He gave us intelligence, curiosity, and left us evidence in the world to know. Obviously, He intended for us to know.

I think you missed my point.. I do not care how intelligent someone may fancy themselves to be..... They just will never be able to understand how to create something out from "nothing." Only God.

God's thinking manufactures realities at will. Those realities when studied and observed hint at the unlimited ultra super genius of God to those with just enough intelligence to detect mere genius.

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationists? Secular evolutionists denigrate God's creation down to random chance and "matter that was always there."

If you think that's what it's about, it explains why you hate science so much. If that's what it said, I'd hate it too. But no, it's not about mere randomness, or about an eternal universe, neither of which are part of the theory. You've been trained to hate a straw man.

That is really ironic

Yep. "People are down on things they aren't up on." - Everett Dirkson

I said: "How can a mere man know how He did it?"

Barbarian explains:
He gave us intelligence, curiosity, and left us evidence in the world to know. Obviously, He intended for us to know.

I think you missed my point.

No, I just think you don't want to know.

I do not care how intelligent someone may fancy themselves to be.

God cared enough to give us the intelligence and curiosity to go see for ourselves. I think He did it best.

They just will never be able to understand how to create something out from "nothing."

We can only see how He manages creation in this world. But that's enough.

 

[GenemZ]

Here we go... Stop right here.

Nice scenery...

 

[The Barbarian]

The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.