Is evolution a fact or theory?

[dcalling]

Humans were created from existing life, not directly from the earth.

Gen 2:7 "The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils ..."

 

[The Barbarian]

Gen 2:7 "The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils ..."

True. All life came from the earth. Our only difference is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows the facts, demonstrating the evolution of mammals from reptiles)

You really love to claim something that are just your opinion as facts, even about me....

I showed you precisely what you said could not be; the evolution of mammals by gradual steps from reptiles. No point in denying the fact. Everyone here saw it.

(Barbarian notes that there has not yet (nor is there likely to be) a "culmination" of knowledge in genetics.

knowledge is always accumulating.

Which is why we won't have a "culmination." "Accumulating" and "culmination" are not synonyms.

Well, thing will mutate within God's design boundaries, as my article already showed.

So far, the imagined boundaries have never been identified. Can you show us an example, of an organism that is at its limit of variation, and can evolve no further? The "design boundaries" are fairy tales, with no evidence whatever for them. As you learned, there were no boundaries at all between reptiles and mammals.

Those mutations are just pre-existing parameters that are allowed to tweak, i.e. the changes in lizards.

If you think so, you don't know what mutations are. The only limit to variation is that any evolution of organisms requires that no step in the process be harmful to the organism involved.

Ever thought why lizards change so much

In this case, the evolution of a new digestive organ was easier than the evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria. I don't believe any vertebrate has been observed to evolve a new enzyme system in a human life time. The reason the bacteria evolved so much more, is that they reproduce so much faster.

yet e.coli, which is much simpler, can't evolve much more variants other than the ones already exists in nature?

You have it backwards. A new enyzme system is a much more involved process than a new digestive organ, which needed only morphological changes.

How fast can those same lizards evolve if you put them in another environment?

Depends on the environment. They were forced to become more herbivorous, and so needed a longer digestive tract. A spiral valve did that nicely.

They are not evolving beyond their limitations

As you see, "limitations" are not what you were told. For example, there are no boundaries between reptiles and mammals.

 

[dcalling]

You thought you showed me, and you thought there is no point, however what you don't realize is that all you thought was going on are just assumptions.

(Barbarian shows the facts, demonstrating the evolution of mammals from reptiles)



I showed you precisely what you said could not be; the evolution of mammals by gradual steps from reptiles. No point in denying the fact. Everyone here saw it.

(Barbarian notes that there has not yet (nor is there likely to be) a "culmination" of knowledge in genetics.



Which is why we won't have a "culmination." "Accumulating" and "culmination" are not synonyms.



So far, the imagined boundaries have never been identified. Can you show us an example, of an organism that is at its limit of variation, and can evolve no further? The "design boundaries" are fairy tales, with no evidence whatever for them. As you learned, there were no boundaries at all between reptiles and mammals.



If you think so, you don't know what mutations are. The only limit to variation is that any evolution of organisms requires that no step in the process be harmful to the organism involved.



In this case, the evolution of a new digestive organ was easier than the evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria. I don't believe any vertebrate has been observed to evolve a new enzyme system in a human life time. The reason the bacteria evolved so much more, is that they reproduce so much faster.



You have it backwards. A new enyzme system is a much more involved process than a new digestive organ, which needed only morphological changes.



Depends on the environment. They were forced to become more herbivorous, and so needed a longer digestive tract. A spiral valve did that nicely.



As you see, "limitations" are not what you were told. For example, there are no boundaries between reptiles and mammals.

 

[dcalling]

True. All life came from the earth. Our only difference is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Or that you don't approve the way He did it?
You are very firm and you think you know how He did it. I just don't dare to be firm on something that I don't know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Or that you don't approve the way He did it?
You are very firm and you think you know how He did it.

Comes down to evidence. Either He did it they way the evidence shows He did, or he is deceptive. And since God is truth, there is really no choice.

I just don't dare to be firm on something that I don't know.

Hence the value of learning about His creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

You thought you showed me, and you thought there is no point, however what you don't realize is that all you thought was going on are just assumptions.

If you have to reclassify evidence as "assumptions", isn't that an important clue?

 

[Saricharity]

Evolution has nothing to do with the facts and as far as theory's go, its one of the all-time worst. It's more like a fairy tale, wishful thinking. In fact, it's more of a religion than anything else.

Exactly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ancient of Days said: ↑
Evolution has nothing to do with the facts and as far as theory's go, its one of the all-time worst. It's more like a fairy tale, wishful thinking. In fact, it's more of a religion than anything else.

Creationism is a religion. Evolution is a natural phenomenon,which is directly observed.

Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

 

[2tim_215]

Creationism is a religion. Evolution is a natural phenomenon,which is directly observed.

Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

To some people evolution is a religion depending of the definition you use.
Merriam Webster definition:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

The same could be said for science I believe for some people.

 

[The Barbarian]

To some people evolution is a religion depending of the definition you use.

To some people, a dog is a chicken, depending on the definition you use.

Merriam Webster definition:

1. 
   
2. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
   
3. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
   
4. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

The same could be said for science I believe for some people.

You, for example. On the other hand, no one who really knows anything about science knows that the cause or the purpose of the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or with science generally.

A belief that depends on conflating two different things, is almost certainly false.

 

[2tim_215]

To some people, a dog is a chicken, depending on the definition you use.

I suppose so, if you use evolutionary thinking. I think one of your pictures may show this.

Merriam Webster definition:

1. 
   
2. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
   
3. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
   
4. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

This could apply to those who believe in science (you don't necessarily have to be knowledgeable about it, but could still adopt it as your belief system).

You, for example. On the other hand, no one who really knows anything about science knows that the cause or the purpose of the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or with science generally.

Then why are we discussing it on a Christian forum like it does?

A belief that depends on conflating two different things, is almost certainly false.

So believing in both God and science must be false according to you? I know that this must be a misstatement.
conflate
1a : to bring together : fuse
b : confuse
2: to combine (things, such as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

• The editor conflated the two texts.

• … a city of conflated races and cultures …
• —Earl Shorris

Evolution (science) when discussed becomes a religious discussion to both sides, the Christian side because it tries to denigrate God's word.

 

[dcalling]

Comes down to evidence. Either He did it they way the evidence shows He did, or he is deceptive. And since God is truth, there is really no choice.

The evidences:
1. all fossils of different kinds has large gaps between them. New fossils are most likely one of the existing kinds.
2. After 30 years and 60k generations of e.coli evolution testing, we still only have e.coli.
3. After so many years of research, we finally found out "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."

and "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans"
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

Those are the most recent findings in genetics, and it is pretty clear that God designed all, and the framework is rather stable even though small variations can occur.

Hence the value of learning about His creation.

We both agree on this one.

 

[NobleMouse]

The evidences:
1. all fossils of different kinds has large gaps between them. New fossils are most likely one of the existing kinds.
2. After 30 years and 60k generations of e.coli evolution testing, we still only have e.coli.
3. After so many years of research, we finally found out "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."

and "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans"
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

Those are the most recent findings in genetics, and it is pretty clear that God designed all, and the framework is rather stable even though small variations can occur.


We both agree on this one.

Thank you for posting this article - is very interesting, and I imagine is sparking some debate within the evolutionary community. The statements you made above also correlate to the research I've come across on the topic of evolution and the fossil record as well - almost exclusively, fossils generally abruptly show up in the fossil record, and remain morphologically 'static' up until the point they abruptly disappear and are believed to have gone extinct.

 

[The Barbarian]

The evidences:
1. all fossils of different kinds has large gaps between them.

Let's test your belief. Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. What do you have?

2. After 30 years and 60k generations of e.coli evolution testing, we still only have e.coli.

And after millions of years, humans are still primates. The fossil record indicates it took nearly a billion years for bacteria to evolve to eukaryotes. So not surprising. However, macroevolution of new species is well-documented.

3. After so many years of research, we finally found out "And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between."

Which is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Although there are many counter-examples where it's difficult to determine if there's one species or several (as in ring species and cline populations) speciation normally requires reproductive isolation, meaning any intermediate forms would have to die off in order to get that isolation. As Darwin wrote, much earlier.

and "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans"

Which is what we'd expect if there was a worldwide change in environment back in the pleistocene.

Approximately 11,000 years ago a variety of animals went extinct across North America. These were mostly mammals larger than approximately 44 kg (about 100 pounds). Some of the animals that went extinct are well known (like saber-toothed cats, mammoths, and mastodons). Others were less well known animals (like the short-faced skunk and the giant beaver). Some animals went extinct in North America but survived elsewhere, for example, horses and tapirs.


Before this extinction the diversity of large mammals in North America was similar to that of modern Africa. As a result of the extinction, relatively few large mammals are now found in North America.
http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/lp_extinction.html

The newly-evolved H. sapiens, with greatly superior hunting abilities, seems to have had some effect as well:
One of the great debates about extinction is whether humans or climatic change caused the demise of the Pleistocene megafauna. Evidence from paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and ecology now supports the idea that humans contributed to extinction on some continents, but human hunting was not solely responsible for the pattern of extinction everywhere. Instead, evidence suggests that the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change drove the precise timing and geography of extinction in the Northern Hemisphere. The story from the Southern Hemisphere is still unfolding. New evidence from Australia supports the view that humans helped cause extinctions there, but the correlation with climate is weak or contested. Firmer chronologies, more realistic ecological models, and regional paleoecological insights still are needed to understand details of the worldwide extinction pattern and the population dynamics of the species involved.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5693/70.full

Geneticists have discovered evidence of the great quaternary extinction. Cool.

Those are the most recent findings in genetics, and it is pretty clear that God designed all

Don't see any evidence of design. Just nature proceeding as He intended.

and the framework is rather stable even though small variations can occur.

See above. This isn't a surprise to any person familiar with biology.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thank you for posting this article - is very interesting, and I imagine is sparking some debate within the evolutionary community. The statements you made above also correlate to the research I've come across on the topic of evolution and the fossil record as well - almost exclusively, fossils generally abruptly show up in the fossil record, and remain morphologically 'static' up until the point they abruptly disappear and are believed to have gone extinct.

I guess neither you guys actually read the conclusion of the article.

I'll quote just so we have it here with us.


"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."

Well....duh.

"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."

100,000 to 200,000 years ago? Well first off, thats a lot older than 6,000 years. But aside from that, that is 100,000 years in difference.

So really what the article is concluding, is that speciation in 9 out of 10 species, occurs within 200,000 years. Which sounds reasonable to me.

 

[NobleMouse]

I guess neither you guys actually read the conclusion of the article.

I'll quote just so we have it here with us.


"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."

Well....duh.

"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."

100,000 to 200,000 years ago? Well first off, thats a lot older than 6,000 years. But aside from that, that is 100,000 years in difference.

So really what the article is concluding, is that speciation in 9 out of 10 species, occurs within 200,000 years. Which sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, I also saw the ages they gave as well. My focus was around how this directly challenges the conventional dating and evolutionary assumptions... but thank you for pointing that out. Want me to do the math then for you as to the difference between say 540,000,000 million years vs 200,000 years? No? Ok, well as I've pointed out - science is an ineffective tool for unequivocally affirming or disaffirming God and His word so while these articles are very interesting and I am not surprised when evidence like this shows up, my faith is not in the scientific results, but in God's word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I also saw the ages they gave as well. My focus was around how this directly challenges the conventional dating and evolutionary assumptions...

It fits evolutionary theory rather well, as I demonstrated above. But the 100,000 year data seems to directly challenge YE creationist assumptions.

Want me to do the math then for you as to the difference between say 540,000,000 million years

I have no idea where you got trillions of years.

vs 200,000 years?

How well does that fit YE assumptions? About 20 times too long. But it fits evolutionary theory rather well.

 

[2tim_215]

It fits evolutionary theory rather well, as I demonstrated above. But the 100,000 year data seems to directly challenge YE creationist assumptions.



I have no idea where you got trillions of years.



How well does that fit YE assumptions? About 20 times too long. But it fits evolutionary theory rather well.

How does that fit evolutionary theory? It just fits the Old Earth theory. I guess you could say that it's a good fit for evolution so that the transformations they claim would have taken billions of years in most cases. It's still uncertain as to what really happened and whether certain kinds morphed into others. Stick to the Old Earth argument and evolutionists might win.

 

[The Barbarian]

How does that fit evolutionary theory?

Major changes in environment is predicted to result in many extinctions and speciations. Which is precisely what we see in the fossil record, and in the genetics of present-day animals.

It just fits the Old Earth theory.

That too, but it also fits Darwin's theory very well.

I guess you could say that it's a good fit for evolution so that the transformations they claim would have taken billions of years in most cases.

The changes demonstrated by those geneticists are more like hundreds of thousands of years. And quite adequate for the changes we see in the environment and the organisms living there during that time.