Is evolution even a theory?

[inquiring mind]

I would like to know why evolution is more unlikely than Creation. I have faith that God exists. However, I have evidence that evolution happened.

You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.

 

[The Barbarian]

You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.

That's a common misconception, but speciations have been directly observed. Most creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and even familiies evolve from esisting ones. Which would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "kind,"

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a common misconception, but speciations have been directly observed. Most creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and even familiies evolve from esisting ones. Which would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "kind,"

Give me one population of a specific genus that produced a new genus.

 

[The Barbarian]

Give me one population of a specific genus that produced a new genus.

Foxes, (Vulpes) from Canis. YE creationists agree, arguing that both genera are "dog kind" and have a common ancestor.

 

[Frank Robert]

You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.

Your statement is unsupported. To support it you would need to present evidence that evolution miraculously stops at species level.

A simple google search on "specialization in action" can provide insight if you are open for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your statement is unsupported. To support it you would need to present evidence that evolution miraculously stops at species level.

Evidence for a miracle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Foxes, (Vulpes) from Canis. YE creationists agree, arguing that both genera are "dog kind" and have a common ancestor.

The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Since a Vulpes (fox) cannot breed with a Canine (dog) ...

The longer answer to why dog-fox hybrids can’t exist has to do with the two species having vastly different numbers of chromosomes. Foxes and dogs diverged (that is, veered off from their common ancestor and became separate species) over 7 million years ago, and have evolved into very different creatures that cannot cross-breed.

SOURCE

... they belong in two different genera.

What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.

I believe God made foxes AND dogs on the same day of creation.

CORRECT: dogs + foxes
INCORRECT: dogs → foxes

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

No. Genus is not defined in the Bible. In fact, most YE creationist groups consider the various genera of canids to be "the dog kind", just as they consider different genera of felids to be "the cat kind."

What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.

Creationists have already conceded the fact. If they don't do this, the number of animals on the Ark would become completely impossible.

I believe God made foxes AND dogs on the same day of creation.

Reality doesn't take our beliefs into account.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evidence for a miracle?

Yes, if you assume that speciation stops at the Genus level. If you can insert an unscriptural miracle any time the evidence fails to support your assumptions, then any assumption is equally valid.

 

[Frank Robert]

Evidence for a miracle?

I know you are not as dense as you want to appear.

 

[Frank Robert]

The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Since a Vulpes (fox) cannot breed with a Canine (dog) ...


SOURCE

... they belong in two different genera.

What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.

I believe God made foxes AND dogs on the same day of creation.

CORRECT: dogs + foxes
INCORRECT: dogs → foxes

Why do you want to want others to think you do not know that the bible is not a science book?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Genus is not defined in the Bible. In fact, most YE creationist groups consider the various genera of canids to be "the dog kind", just as they consider different genera of felids to be "the cat kind."

Just so you know:

genus

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin").

SOURCE

Creationists have already conceded the fact.

Which of the thousands of garden varieties of creationists would that be?

If they don't do this, the number of animals on the Ark would become completely impossible.

And how would that be a problem with God, who got the animals aboard in the first place?

I can think of a way He did it, but I'm sure it would be hard for you to comprehend.

Reality doesn't take our beliefs into account.

That is correct.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just so you know:

genus

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin").

No, that's wrong, "Kind" is not a taxon. "Class" is several levels above "genus." "Race" is one level below "species." What did you use, a dictionary?

Which of the thousands of garden varieties of creationists would that be?

YE creationists like ICR, Answers in Genesis, those guys.

If they don't do this, the number of animals on the Ark would become completely impossible.

And how would that be a problem with God, who got the animals aboard in the first place?

The wonderful thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles is that it makes all ideas equally plausible,

 

[AV1611VET]

The wonderful thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles is that it makes all ideas equally plausible,

But only one is the correct one.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm talking about the theory that man evolved from bacteria over a slow, gradual process. I'm not arguing the fact that there are slow biological changes over time.

So, universal common ancestry. Got it.

Is evolution even a theory?

Yes, it is—according to the article "Scientific theory" at Wikipedia.

1. "A scientific theory is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense ..."

I can admit the wording of this confuses me. Maybe it's too late at night. Maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.

What it means for us here is that, as a scientific theory, universal common ancestry is (a) consistent with other stuff we know empirically and (b) is not less accurate in its predictions than preexisting theories.

If you disagree with either of these, please explain the specifics of your disagreement. In other words, identify specific experimental results with which universal common ancestry conflicts, or identify the preexisting theories whose predictions were more accurate than those of universal common ancestry.

If you can accept that universal common ancestry fits this, then let's move on.

2. "A scientific theory is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation, if not totally correct ..."

[Evolution is] not really supported by many strands of evidence. [For one thing,] geology and astronomy are often said to coincide with evolution but evidence for the age of the earth and universe is not evidence for evolution. The best evidence is the fossil record, which has some holes and inconsistencies as well.

Others here have provided you with examples of these several strands of evidence (e.g., ERVs). Unless you can refute those, then this point stands uncontested.

Moving on.

3. "A scientific theory has survived many critical real world tests which could have proven it false ..."

Like what? In a theory that is supposed to have happened over billions of years, what possible way could it be tested?

The theory makes countless predictions, some are explicit but most are implied. Those predictions can be tested. For example, if molecules-to-man evolution is true, then the genetic code in all organisms should be very similar. In fact, the genetic code—the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids—is the same for almost every organism. A piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell. These are real world tests which could have proven the theory false (e.g., if we had found widely different genetic codes).

Here's another test: If molecules-to-man evolution is true, then we would expect phylogenetic trees (cladistics) produced by comparing DNA sequences to demonstrate congruence with traditional taxonomy (classification). "For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons. Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Evidence of common descent").

4. "A scientific theory makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory ..."

The only thing that would falsify evolution (as per a thread I started a while back) is the fossil record not supporting it. The fossil record doesn't outright contradict it but, at the same time, there is no strong evidence from it.

As has been demonstrated to you multiple times in this thread here (I haven't looked at that other thread), fossils are not the only way to falsify evolution. The theory makes countless predictions, all of which are testable or falsifiable.

The discovery of Tiktaalik is another example of a real world test. We have found tetrapod-like species around 365 million years ago but more fish-like species around 385 million years ago. So, if evolution is true, there should be some kind of intermediate species dating somewhere in that 20-million-year window (between 365 and 385 million years ago), something in between fish-like and tetrapod-like.

This was the thinking of a research team that went on to discover a number of fossil specimens of a new species, Tiktaalik roseae, in exactly the timeframe predicted and "precisely fitting as intermediates in the tetrapod evolutionary sequence" (Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch, 2008), pp. 127–128). The theory produced another testable prediction which also led to fruitful research and the discovery of more fossil evidence consistent with evolution.

If they had not found anything, would that have disproved the theory? No. Finding a fossilized rabbit would have done that, or a human footprint in the nest of some oviraptorosaur—evidence that would support creationism. Nevertheless, it was a testable and fruitful prediction, the mark of a good scientific theory.

"5. A scientific theory is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty ..."

Yes, evolution fits this—at least enough not to argue about it.

Agreed.

6. "A scientific theory is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's razor."

[...] So, creation—a simple idea—is overthrown by the complex, mathematically improbable and increasingly complex theory of evolution.

Not quite. Let's look back at that quote you used: "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler." Creationism is not an equally predictive scientific theory. In fact, it is not a scientific theory at all.

Or is it? I mean, you just provided several criteria for a scientific theory. Does creationism meet any of them?

1. Is creationism consistent with other stuff we know empirically? And is at least as accurate in its predictions as preexisting theories? No (on both counts). Creationism is not consistent with the fossil record, for example. Also, creationism does not make any testable or falsifiable predictions, so it is meaningless to speak of their accuracy.

2. Is creationism supported by multiple strands of evidence? No. It has support from the canonical scriptures at best—although not even there, I have argued—but no support anywhere else. All kinds of evidence are consistent with creationism, but there is none that clearly supports it. And the fact that nothing can falsify creationism, even in principle, is likely its greatest downfall.

3. Has creationism survived countless real world tests? No. There have been no real world tests of creationism, because none are even possible.

4. Does creationism make testable or falsifiable predictions? No. Indeed, it cannot afford to make any.

5. Is creationism tentative, correctable, and provisional (subject to new evidence)? No. It's as definitive, immutable, and uncompromising as anything in Scripture, being the word of God.

6. Is creationism simple or parsimonious, free of ad hoc hypotheses? No. In the face of wide-ranging evidence for the age of the universe and our planet, creationism has had to rely on numerous ad hoc hypotheses.

In contrast to this, evolution is a scientific theory by virtue of the fact that it

• is consistent with other stuff we know empirically, and is not less accurate in its predictions than preexisting theories.
• is supported by multiple strands of evidence.
• has survived countless real world tests.
• makes testable or falsifiable predictions.
• is tentative, correctable, and provisional (subject to new evidence).
• is simple or parsimonious, free of ad hoc hypotheses.

 

[lismore]

It's definitely a scientific theory, or else they wouldn't be teaching it in biology at the colleges.

Collegial infallibility.

 

[Frank Robert]

Collegial infallibility.

Collegial? Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution. There is some consilience among the approximate 40,000 Christian denominations on how to read the bible but there is still much to be desired.

Infallibility? Unlike creationists' literal reading of the bible, science does not stand still and will self correct as evidence accumulates.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution.

After how many tries and collaborations?

 

[Frank Robert]

After how many tries and collaborations?

Science is accepted by peer reviews. Peer reviewers decide the merit of the current evidence. Unlike religious beliefs a theory is not sacrosanct and can updated or replaced when additional scientific evidence becomes available. Think of it as a fine wine that improves with age where with science age is replaced with evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is accepted by peer reviews.

After how many tries and collaborations?