Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

[monkeypsycho62]

Evolution is not a fact.

Correct. It's a theory. Theories connect many facts.

What's your point?

 

[TheBear]

These are not my words.

Post your own words then.

What do you really know about evolution? Let's hear it, in your own words.

 

[gluadys]

No scientist, nor anyone else in recorded history for that matter, has ever observed the supposed process of evolution occurring.

Incorrect. The process of evolution has been observed repeatedly. However, your next statement shows that you do not know what the process of evolution is.

When I say evolution is not a fact, let me be clear what I mean by "evolution" in this statement. I do not mean microevolution. Speciation and adaptation do occur. These are microevolutionary changes or developments.

What you mistakenly refer to as "micro-evolution" and "adaptation" IS the process of evolution. And it has been repeatedly observed.

Can you describe the mechanism of adaptive change? If you are describing it properly, you are describing the process of evolution.

The complete theory of evolution is the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life (or abiogenesis), that these "primitive" cells somehow developed into "simple" organisms that swam in the ancient ponds and seas, that these organisms evolved into fish, that some fish evolved into reptiles, that some reptiles then evolved into mammals, and that some mammals evolved into man. This is the full-blown theory of evolution, and it is this theory that creationists strongly dispute.

So your difficulty is not really with the process of evolution, but with the history of evolution. The history of evolution is not quite the same thing as the theory of evolution, although there is some overlap. The theory of evolution is basically about the process of evolution (what you call "micro-evolution").

The theory of evolution implies that evolution followed a historical path. It requires that related species have a common ancestor.

But the theory of evolution does not predict one specific historical path. The actual history of vertebrate evolution could not be predicted from the theory of evolution or an understanding of the process of evolution.

We know much of the actual historical pathway of evolution from evidence, not from theoretical premises. We have encountered enough evidence of the directions evolution took, that we can now use the theory to predict what happened at certain points. This led to the recent discovery of Tiktaalik. It was predictable from what we knew came before and after that a species like Tiktaalik had to exist in a certain time-frame and in certain environmental conditions.

It is rather silly of creationists to accept the basic process of evolution (what you call "micro-evolution" and "adaptation") and then reject the evidence of evolutionary history.

What else could the process lead to other than a history such as the one we see preserved both in the fossil record and in our genes?

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Well I was all set ot jump in here, but apparently you guys got this one covered. Kinda disappointing in a way.
Especially since all we have here is an attempt at redefining terms and then some pathetic handwaving as to why these redefined terms can't be true.

 

[Split Rock]

It is rather silly of creationists to accept the basic process of evolution (what you call "micro-evolution" and "adaptation") and then reject the evidence of evolutionary history.

You hit the nail on the head. It is not the process or mechanisms of evolution that Creationists object to, it is the inference that we are related to dirty, souless apes.

What else could the process lead to other than a history such as the one we see preserved both in the fossil record and in our genes?

Good point! (Although paul123 probably would argue that 6,000 years is not enough time.)

 

[truth above all else]

I see only one true statement in what you have written, namely that creationists have little facts. Although none would probably be more accurate.

But evolution is a fact. Evolution is properly defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, which has been observed. Macro evolution, the change above the species level, has also been observed. Both are facts.

in fact evolution as so defined , when reduced to a simple equation associated with insignificant and arbitrary change in the germ plasm over time, is in fact, fact. No one disputes this regardless of the juvenile evidence peppered moths,laboratory torture of the humble fruit fly etc.) But the artificial term -macroevolution is in fact not fact . Change above the specie level is philosophy and cunningly promoted as a phenomenon that will be adequately understood when! we discover a process that makes new species from current makes and models. I suggest no one hold their breath.

 

[consol]

Why is evidence about evolution never enough for creationists???

Because as soon as they admit that evidence is true creationism ceases to be a religion,
they will argue forever, even with nothing to argue about, they will continue to argue,
what else can they do??? they believe in a false religion, it has no legs and will not
stand up on it's own, why, because it is up against evolution, a fight they can not win,
but while they may know this, they must keep fighting, because if they stop, it's the end.

None of us will be around in a hundred years time, but I would like to bet that people will
be laughing at the fact that people once believed in Creationism.

 

[truth above all else]

On the contrary ,I'm still laughing at the fact that well educated and for all intents and purposes , well meaning people still accept the evolutionary synthesis as an all encompassing theory of everything. I'm happy to accept your bet , please message me reasonable odds.

 

[USincognito]

On the contrary ,I'm still laughing at the fact that well educated...

Hey we're all laughing too, but not because you're well educated.

 

[Belfry]

On the contrary ,I'm still laughing at the fact that well educated and for all intents and purposes , well meaning people still accept the evolutionary synthesis as an all encompassing theory of everything. I'm happy to accept your bet , please message me reasonable odds.

Excuse me, "all encompassing theory of everything?" It seems to be creationists who have this misconception. From the very first response in the thread, folks have been explaining that evolutionary theory does NOT address "everything," nor is it meant to.

Evolutionary theory is about how populations of organisms change and diversify over time, due to variation in and selection on heritable traits.

Let's get this straight:

• It is not about the origin of life.
• It is not about the origin of the universe.
• It is not a proof against the existence of deities.
• It is not a moral imperative for human behavior.

And so forth.

 

[consol]

On the contrary ,I'm still laughing at the fact that well educated and for all intents and purposes , well meaning people still accept the evolutionary synthesis as an all encompassing theory of everything. I'm happy to accept your bet , please message me reasonable odds.

I am sorry but morals dictate that I must not take candy from children,
even if those children should know better.

PS.
Do you ever think that there might just be something in all of this evolution nonsense? have you ever looked into it?

After all, everything around you is based on physics,
even you, the way your body takes oxygen out of the air to keep you alive,
and the sun, without which everything on earth would die, nothing supernatural about that, is there?

 

[FishFace]

in fact evolution as so defined , when reduced to a simple equation associated with insignificant and arbitrary change in the germ plasm over time, is in fact, fact. No one disputes this regardless of the juvenile evidence peppered moths,laboratory torture of the humble fruit fly etc.) But the artificial term -macroevolution is in fact not fact .

What's so difficult to understand about "lots of little changes = one big change?"

Here's the evidence we came from apes: human chromosome number 2. Deal with it.

Change above the specie level is philosophy

Philosophy comes from the greek words philos and sophos and means "love of knowledge." It is now defined as "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." A philosophy is a set of related beliefs arising from such rational investigation.

Perhaps you did not mean philosophy.

cunningly promoted as a phenomenon that will be adequately understood when! we discover a process that makes new species from current makes and models. I suggest no one hold their breath.

Well, no-one needs to. If you ever bothered to read people's replies, then you'd already have read the list of observed speciation events, and would now that what you are saying is just plain wrong. It amounts to a lie, seeing as you're willfully ignoring what we're telling you.

 

[FishFace]

[scientists accept] evolutionary synthesis as an all encompassing theory of everything.

Uh, no, that's your strawman version of evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, and certain genetic patterns. It does not explain, for example, why rocks fall out of the sky, or why coffee goes cold.

 

[Atheuz]

What a sad thread...

 

[paul123]

Correct. It's a theory. Theories connect many facts.

What's your point?

My point is that evolution is NOT a fact.

 

[Atheuz]

My point is that evolution is NOT a fact.

No, Theory of Evolution is not a fact. Fact of Evolution is, it says that life changes over time - Theory of Evolution explains why.

 

[Dannager]

My point is that evolution is NOT a fact.

Yeah, it is. Did you read the links you were provided explaining exactly how it qualifies as a fact? Or did you ignore them?

 

[truth above all else]

No, Theory of Evolution is not a fact. Fact of Evolution is, it says that life changes over time - Theory of Evolution explains why.

Oh dear,the power evolutionary tautology constantly amuses me.If you define evolution as "whatever produces classification" , then evolution must be fact in the same sense that classification is a fact. Such recasting of the theory as fact serves only to protect it from falsification.In actual fact then, evolution is nothing more than a deduction from the fact of classification .

 

[Tomk80]

My point is that evolution is NOT a fact.

And you point is dead wrong. Accept it.

Evolution: the change of allele frequencies of a population over time. This is observed, it is fact.

Macro-evolution: evolution above species level; has been observed, is a fact.

Theory of evolution: the change of allele frequencies of a population is caused by mutation, selection, genetic drift, perhaps some other mechanisms; an explanation of why the fact is evolution happens hence called the theory of evolution.

Need any explanation for any of these?

 

[Tomk80]

Oh dear,the power evolutionary tautology constantly amuses me.If you define evolution as "whatever produces classification" , then evolution must be fact in the same sense that classification is a fact. Such recasting of the theory as fact serves only to protect it from falsification.In actual fact then, evolution is nothing more than a deduction from the fact of classification .

Facts are descriptions. Descriptions are tautological by there very nature.

Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. Reading from your post above, you didn't know that. That is good, because now you can learn the definition. Learning this definition will also stop you from making incredibly stupid mistakes, like lumping in abiogenesis with evolution.