Is evolution a theory?

[NailsII]

Don't use taxonomic ranks, any rank above species is completely arbitrary. Give me an illustrative example. Imagine an evolving, I don't know, lizard. What kinds of changes would need to happen to it to stop being a lizard?

This is a very good point, and one that I think is worth repeating.
(PFT if you like)

 

[Doveaman]

Is evolution a theory?

Simple question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Yes.

I'm leaving the terms of the poll undefined, so please leave a post with your own definitions of 'evolution' and 'theory',

Evolution Theory = A Darwin invented story modified over time by scientists to give it the appearance of reality: A Modern Myth.

and perhaps a short explanation of your answer.

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.." - (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

 

[RaiseTheDead]

It starts with a primate and ends with a primate. That is microevolution according to the creationist criterium of being able to use the same name to describe the ancestor and descendant.

Nope, it is "super-cro" (Making things up as we go is all the rage lately)

 

[RaiseTheDead]

All of the answers to your questions were in the original paragraph that I quoted. The algae (not bacteria) started as single cells. Later, they were found as colonies ranging from 4 to 32 cells. Even later, they were consistently found in colonies of 8 cells which persisted for over a decade.

That answered nothing. My questions were based on reading that.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Amply answered above, but ... why should the number of cells matter?

If evolution is responsible for primordial slime to modern man, than a single cell organism must be able to evolve into a multi-celled organism, and not merely a colony of single celled organisms. (I gotta watch the typos

Don't use taxonomic ranks, any rank above species is completely arbitrary.

Largely, yes; but I think the division between plant and animal kingdoms is pretty empirical. (Yet even as I type that, I'm imagining what long list of freaky creatures you can come up with to prove that idea wrong Does current theory hold each kingdom has a completely separate original ancestor, that they crossed over, or is it unknown?)

Most of them seem to define macroevolution as "the sort of evolution I don't believe in".They've just heard that macroevolution has never been seen, and come here totally convinced that we can't prove them wrong.

Judging from their stubborn refusal to give a useable definition of a "kind", I'm not holding out hope, though. "Microevolution" has been defined as "evolution within a kind", if memory serves.

Ok, so we can't define "kind," but if something were to break out of that mold it would count as macroevolution, in creationist's terms. I'm having a tough time poking holes in that. It's upheld by Scripture, and we have no physical evidence to refute it. I'll also note that Scripture mentions many things we can't clearly define.

It seems that science and religion operate on different planes?

 

[Loudmouth]

That answered nothing. My questions were based on reading that.

Perhaps you could rephrase your questions?

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution is responsible for primordial slime to modern man, than a single cell organism must be able to evolve into a multi-celled organism, and not merely a colony of single celled organisms.

A colony of non-differentiated cells would be the obvious transitional stage between single cells and a multicellular organism with differentiated tissues, wouldn't it?

Largely, yes; but I think the division between plant and animal kingdoms is pretty empirical.

The similarities are empirical as well.

(Yet even as I type that, I'm imagining what long list of freaky creatures you can come up with to prove that idea wrong Does current theory hold each kingdom has a completely separate original ancestor, that they crossed over, or is it unknown?)

Current theory holds that all life shares a common ancestral pool. This is why all life shares the same arbitrary characteristics. For example, there is no physical law that states ATG should code for methionine. Even if all life had tRNA's there is no reason that the anti-codon on the methionine tRNA should be UAC for all life. As for plants and animals, ancient protist-like organisms may have been the common ancestors for these two lineages.


Ok, so we can't define "kind," but if something were to break out of that mold it would count as macroevolution, in creationist's terms. I'm having a tough time poking holes in that. It's upheld by Scripture, and we have no physical evidence to refute it. I'll also note that Scripture mentions many things we can't clearly define.

It seems that science and religion operate on different planes?[/quote]

 

[RaiseTheDead]

A colony of non-differentiated cells would be the obvious transitional stage between single cells and a multicellular organism with differentiated tissues, wouldn't it?

You're making the same mistake evolutionists love to pin on creationists. I'm sure there are fancy terms for it, but you've started with a conclusion, and squeezing reality into that to suit your whim.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're making the same mistake evolutionists love to pin on creationists. I'm sure there are fancy terms for it, but you've started with a conclusion, and squeezing reality into that to suit your whim.

It is a prediction, not a conclusion. The theory of evolution predicts that a viable transitional form between single celled organisms and differentiated multicellular organisms would be a multicellular organism without differentiated tissues. I am not concluding that this is what happened.

 

[Smidlee]

It is a prediction, not a conclusion. The theory of evolution predicts that a viable transitional form between single celled organisms and differentiated multicellular organisms would be a multicellular organism without differentiated tissues. I am not concluding that this is what happened.

ToE predicts a lot of stuff. There are at least three different theories of how multicellular got started so we know for a fact two of them are wrong if not all three.

 

[BobRyan]

Simple question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I'm leaving the terms of the poll undefined, so please leave a post with your own definitions of 'evolution' and 'theory', and perhaps a short explanation of your answer.

Danke!

A better question might be "is evolution provably true at any level or is it all just blind faith mythology combined with junk science?"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Stoneghost]

A better question might be "is evolution provably true at any level or is it all just blind faith mythology combined with junk science?"

in Christ,

Bob

Flu Vaccines say it is provably true at any level, just like 99.5% of research biologists say that. Facts are boring.

 

[Loudmouth]

ToE predicts a lot of stuff. There are at least three different theories of how multicellular got started so we know for a fact two of them are wrong if not all three.

I see that no one can argue with what I actually stated. I don't see why it is so controversial. Care to explain? It would seem to be a logical transitional stage, would it not?

 

[Loudmouth]

A better question might be "is evolution provably true at any level or is it all just blind faith mythology combined with junk science?"

in Christ,

Bob

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

We share thousands and thousands of these retroviral integrations with other apes at the same genomic location (i.e. loci). No blind faith needed. We have the evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

Given the "nonstarter" difficulty trying to get rocks, dust and gas to turn into an amoeba...

Given the "nonstarter" difficulty trying to get a bacteria to turn into eukaryotes...

Given the nonstarter difficulty trying to "believe in" the myth that an Amoeba will turn into a horse "given enough time and chance on mount improbable"...

Given the fact that we do not see the boundaries moving beyond their basic genome for short generation cycle organisms

The sweeping claims of evolutionism seem to fail on every level.

The best storytelling for evolutionism confines itself to the virus that does not become a prokaryote and to the prokaryote that never becomes a eukaryote.

We are then not supposed to "notice" that if they stay stuck at that level - just as we see them -- then evolutionism never gets off the ground.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Flu Vaccines say it is provably true at any level, just like 99.5% of research biologists say that. Facts are boring.

An ounce or two of critical thinking tells us that vaccines are not changing a virus into a prokaryote or a prokaryote into a eukaryote or an amoeba into a horse, or frog or ...

The much imagined march UP the taxonomic ladder is not happening -- no not even with the help of a vaccine.

Thus the vaccine fails to demonstrate the key mechanism that would prove the salient point in macro evolution - that is supposed to account for all of life.

Without that scientific evidence - the determined devotee to evolutionism is stuck "imagining it". No wonder some of them are so vocal about not allowing non-cheerleader style questions on the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Loudmouth]

The sweeping claims of evolutionism seem to fail on every level.

I see that you are refusing to deal with the evidence that I presented above.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I see that no one can argue with what I actually stated. I don't see why it is so controversial. Care to explain? It would seem to be a logical transitional stage, would it not?

Only if those non-differentiated cells can become skin, to house intelligent life. While "kind" is notoriously vague, it seems infinitely more probable that species reproduce after their own "kind."

 

[Loudmouth]

Only if those non-differentiated cells can become skin, to house intelligent life.

Are you saying that everything with skin is intelligent?

While "kind" is notoriously vague, it seems infinitely more probable that species reproduce after their own "kind."

So why do you have a problem with humans evolving from other primates when the common ancestor is from the primate kind and we are still in the primate kind?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Neither one of those questions follow logically from what has been said.