Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Phil 1:21]

Do you have a technically accurate response?

You asked for a publication proving biological evolution, I provided both a definition and a publication directly matching that definition which proved biological evolution to be true.

Actually, this is what I asked...

Sure, please provide a link to the tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory."

So...got a connection to that soup thing-a-ma-bob?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
If you think so, you don't know very much about it. Would you like to learn some of the tests that have confirmed evolutionary theory?

First, you might make sure that you know the 4 points of Darwinian theory, and the way the Modern Synthesis added genetics to Darwin's points. What do you think those are?

Sure,

Great. So tell us what Darwin's four points are and how genetics modified that to produce the modern synthesis. Then we'll go on to showing you how those are confirmed.

please provide a link to the tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory."

If you don't know what evolutionary theory says, let me know, and I'll show you that first.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionon a Petri Dish
The Evolved Beta-Galactosidase System as a Model for Studying Acquisitive Evolution in the Laboratory
Evolutionary Biology pp 85-150
Barry Hall

This study involved directly observing the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system and regulator by random mutation and natural selection. Have you found what Darwin's four points are? Or should I tell you what they are?

What happens if we step things up to the next level, asking evolutionary mechanisms to "design" a multi-part system, a system that, in Behe's terminology, would be irreducibly complex? The most direct way to do this would be with a true acid test - by using the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system, and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it.


The "lac" genes of bacteria are just such a system. Lactose is a sugar, similar in many ways to sucrose, ordinary table sugar, that bacteria can use as a food. In order to do this, they first have to produce an enzyme that can cut lactose in half, releasing two simple sugars (glucose and galactose) that the metabolism of the cell can use for energy. Not surprisingly, bacteria are "smart" enough to "know" that there is no point in making this enzyme - known as galactosidase - when there is no lactose in the medium in which they are growing. In the absence of lactose they automatically shut off the genes required to utilize lactose for food. Clever biochemistry. Behe might say, "clever design."


The bacterium pulls this feat off by combining highly sensitive control genes with the "structural" genes that actually specify the amino acids in the galactosidase enzyme. The control gene keeps the enzyme gene switched off except when it is needed to produce enough of the enzyme to metabolize lactose. Could evolution have produced such a lovely two-part system? Barry Hall tested this possibility in 1982 by deleting the structural gene for galactosidase. He then "challenged" cells with the deletion to grow on lactose. At first, of course, they couldn't. Before long, mutant strains appeared that could handle lactose nearly as well as the originals.


How could this be? How could these cells have reconstructed the information from the missing gene in such a short time, using only the random, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection? The answer, of course, is that these bacteria didn't make the new galactosidase enzyme from scratch. They made it by tinkering with another gene, in which a simple mutation changed an existing enzyme just enough to make it also capable of cleaving the bond that holds the two parts of lactose together. Now, you might think that this wouldn't be enough, and you'd be right. Simply re-engineering an existing protein to replace galactosidase would make no difference unless the control region of that gene was also changed to ensure that the gene was expressed when lactose was present. Significantly, when Hall looked at the control regions of the mutant replacement gene, he found that they had been mutated as well - some of them were now switched on all the time, but a few of them responded directly to lactose, switching the gene on and off as needed.


That would have been impressive enough, but Hall's clever germs didn't stop there. When he selected them further to grow on another sugar (lactulose), he obtained a second series of mutants with a new enzyme that accidentally (in a sense) produced allolactose, the very same chemical signal that is normally used to switch on all of the lac genes. This important development meant that now the cells could switch on synthesis of a cell membrane protein, the lac permease, that speeds the entry of lactose into the cell. Summarizing this work, evolutionary biologist Douglas Futumya wrote:


Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, this is what I asked...So...got a connection to that soup thing-a-ma-bob?

Ok.

"tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory." "

And provided were tests that have proven biological evolution by its very definition.

Here, lets try again.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24287

The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations



https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+evolution
2. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


The experiment involves the monitoring of successive generations of bacteria, the experiment directly observed (and is still observing) the fixation of beneficial mutations which increased fitness of the organisms examined, which further allowed those organisms to out-compete their ancestors via natural selection through competition in which they utilized their newly mutated beneficial traits.

It is, by the definition above, observation of biological evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now connect that dot to the one where people evolved from the primordial soup and you'll have a winner.

See, this is why I asked you to first get up to speed on what evolution is. It's not about the origin of life.
Humans evolved from other primates, not soup.

Since you seem unable to find out what it is, this is the theory:

Evolution is a change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Darwin's four points:
1. more are born than can survive
2. every organism is slightly different than every other of it's kind
3. some of these differences affect the likelihood of that organism surviving long enough to reproduce.
4. these favorable changes accumulate as each generation, favorable ones tend to be more numerous

Genetics shows why such changes can persist in a population. (do you see why?)

As you see, all four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly confirmed. If you doubt any of them, let me know and I'll show you.

For example, we observe that a huge number of living things don't leave any offspring dying before reproducing.

Genetics has shown all individuals have genetic differences from others of their kind, due to mutations.

Biologists have identified numerous favorable mutations as well as a host of unfavorable ones, "favorable" meaning "makes the organism more likely to live long enough to reproduce."

Hall's bacteria show a sequence of mutations that produced the new enzyme system.

And of course, speciation is an observed fact. The first directly observed case was in the early 1900s. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Ok.

"tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory." "

And provided were tests that have proven biological evolution by its very definition.

Here, lets try again.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24287

The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations



https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+evolution
2. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


The experiment involves the monitoring of successive generations of bacteria, the experiment directly observed (and is still observing) the fixation of beneficial mutations which increased fitness of the organisms examined, which further allowed those organisms to out-compete their ancestors via natural selection through competition in which they utilized their newly mutated beneficial traits.

It is, by the definition above, observation of biological evolution.

So that’s a no. Thanks.

 

[Phil 1:21]

See, this is why I asked you to first get up to speed on what evolution is. It's not about the origin of life.
Humans evolved from other primates, not soup.

Since you seem unable to find out what it is, this is the theory:

Evolution is a change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Darwin's four points:
1. more are born than can survive
2. every organism is slightly different than every other of it's kind
3. some of these differences affect the likelihood of that organism surviving long enough to reproduce.
4. these favorable changes accumulate as each generation, favorable ones tend to be more numerous

Genetics shows why such changes can persist in a population. (do you see why?)

As you see, all four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly confirmed. If you doubt any of them, let me know and I'll show you.

For example, we observe that a huge number of living things don't leave any offspring dying before reproducing.

Genetics has shown all individuals have genetic differences from others of their kind, due to mutations.

Biologists have identified numerous favorable mutations as well as a host of unfavorable ones, "favorable" meaning "makes the organism more likely to live long enough to reproduce."

Hall's bacteria show a sequence of mutations that produced the new enzyme system.

And of course, speciation is an observed fact. The first directly observed case was in the early 1900s. Would you like to learn about that?

And a no from you too. Thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

So that’s a no. Thanks.

You asked for tests proving the theory of biological evolution. I gave you a definition of biological evolution and a link to observation and tests of its occurrence.

So, that is a yes.

Do you have some sort of alternate definition for what the theory of evolution is, aside from the actual scientific definition that you would like to share with us?

 

[The Barbarian]

And a no from you too. Thanks.

If an actual example of evolution won't convince you, it's pretty much the usual creationist response....

 

[Phil 1:21]

You asked for tests proving the theory of biological evolution. I gave you a definition of biological evolution and a link to observation and tests of its occurrence.

So, that is a yes.

Do you have some sort of alternate definition for what the theory of evolution is, aside from the actual scientific definition that you would like to share with us?

That wasn’t my question, but you already know that.

 

[Phil 1:21]

If an actual example of evolution won't convince you, it's pretty much the usual creationist response....

Still waiting.

 

[Job 33:6]

That wasn’t my question, but you already know that.

"Tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory." "

Yes, you did. You asked for tests using the scientific method that prove the theory. And that is exactly what I provided. Tests that by the very definition of evolution, prove it to be true.


. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


The experiment involves the monitoring of successive generations of bacteria, the experiment directly observed (and is still observing) the fixation of beneficial mutations which increased fitness of the organisms examined, which further allowed those organisms to out-compete their ancestors via natural selection through competition in which they utilized their newly mutated beneficial traits.

It is, by the definition above, observation of biological evolution.

 

[Phil 1:21]

"Tests using scientific method that have proven "evolutionary theory." "

Yes, you did. You asked for tests using the scientific method that prove the theory. And that is exactly what I provided. Tests that by the very definition of evolution, prove it to be true.


. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


The experiment involves the monitoring of successive generations of bacteria, the experiment directly observed (and is still observing) the fixation of beneficial mutations which increased fitness of the organisms examined, which further allowed those organisms to out-compete their ancestors via natural selection through competition in which they utilized their newly mutated beneficial traits.

It is, by the definition above, observation of biological evolution.

So still nothing connecting those dots, huh? Oh well.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So still nothing connecting those dots, huh? Oh well.

ah, smart grasshpper - you asked him for proof that cannot exist, for something that cannot be proven ...... yes, smart grasshopper !

 

[Job 33:6]

So still nothing connecting those dots, huh? Oh well.

Yeah, I'll say. I even went through the trouble of posting a definition so you would understand that it is by definition, proven. I can only assume that you believe that the theory is something other than what it is scientifically defined as.

 

[The Barbarian]

He didn't last long, did he?

 

[Phil 1:21]

ah, smart grasshpper - you asked him for proof that cannot exist, for something that cannot be proven ...... yes, smart grasshopper !

Of course it can’t be proven. Thus the unproven hypothesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

Evolution,

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

Key words, modification atioms in successive generations.

How can this be? Fixated beneficial mutations that improve fitness over time.

Is it observed?

Yes.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Of course it can’t be proven. Thus the unproven hypothesis.

How easy it is to deceive the whole world, top to bottom !

Come up with a theory the world loves, a theory a few years old that contradicts all that is true, and opposes the one true God and Savior Jesus Christ,
and they will practically lay down their lives for that "love of the world"
instead
of seeking God and repenting ! EVERYONE NEEDS A NEW HEART !

 

[Phil 1:21]

Is it observed?

Yes.

Then show us the “observations” connecting humans to the primordial soup. Can’t? Yeah, we know.