Some Surprising Facts About Evolution

[paul123]

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

Evolution is not a fact.

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. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution. What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, 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.

This is from: Michael T. Griffith

 

[Tiberius]

Why is it then that the fossil record provides a progression of animals that start out as reptiles and display more and more mammalian traits until they are mammals?

And what about the evolution of whales?

 

[Tomk80]

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

Evolution is not a fact.

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. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution.

What is macro evolution more than just a lot of changes together?

What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, The complete theory of evolution is the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life (or abiogenesis),

abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Abiogenesis is chemistry, not biology.

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.

This is from: Michael T. Griffith
These are not my words. I just want them heard.

And they are pointless. Creationists have never been able to tell us what this supposed boundary between little and big change is. Biologists have sometimes defined macro evolution, for example as a change from one species to another, but in all these cases, macro evolution has been observed.

In other words, the 'boundary' between micro and macro evolution is an arbitrary one and completely useless as an argument.

Also, realize that stating that evolution is a theory does nothing to its validity, even though many people (and presumably the author) do. A theory is coherent explanation of how something happens, of mechanisms behind a process. A fact is a description of the process. But description of things can be just as wrong as the explanation of how they happen. A theory can be as true, or even more true, than a fact.

 

[Dannager]

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

Lie. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution is not a fact.

Lie. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

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.

Speciation is macroevolution. Learn what your own made-up terms mean.

These are microevolutionary changes or developments.

No, speciation is the definition of macroevolution.

Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution.

Oh, no, some creationists do.

What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, The complete theory of evolution is the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life (or abiogenesis)

Lie. Abiogenesis is not in any way at all part of evolutionary theory. Stop attacking straw men.

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.

And they dispute it without merit, and for no other reason than they just don't like it.

These are not my words. I just want them heard.

I'm glad they're not yours. The person you quoted them from was lying. Pretty badly. Or if he wasn't, he was sorely ignorant and was lied to by other creationists. Please learn something about evolutionary theory before deciding to attack it. There are plenty of links available here.

 

[Belfry]

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

Evolution is not a fact.

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. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution.

Okay...

What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, 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.

Wow, you're putting all that meaning into "macroevolution?"

The term has been co-opted by creationists, but it was coined by scientists and has a scientific meaning: roughly, evolution at or above the species level. So, as you say: speciation has been observed to occur, therefore by the scientific definition, so has macroevolution. Beyond that, macroevolution is not a singular event that can be observed, nor is it a novel mechanism, but rather it is the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary events.

Mr. Griffith is completely incorrect that evolution (or macroevolution) includes, requires, or assumes abiogenesis. Evolution is something that happens to populations of replicating organisms, and it does not address the origin of life. Evolutionary theory would be unaffected regardless of whether the first life on earth was poofed into existence by a Creator, designed by aliens, dropped down in a meteor, or formed through unguided natural reactions. Abiogenesis is a related, but distinct topic of study.

Universal common descent is part of evolutionary theory, simply because it is strongly supported by a great deal of evidence, and thus far not falsified by any evidence.

 

[paul123]

Why is it then that the fossil record provides a progression of animals that start out as reptiles and display more and more mammalian traits until they are mammals?

And what about the evolution of whales?

What about the evolution of whales?

 

[Tomk80]

What about the evolution of whales?

Got the fossils to show it.

 

[paul123]

Universal common descent is part of evolutionary theory, simply because it is strongly supported by a great deal of evidence, and thus far not falsified by any evidence.

What is this evidence?


Why would you falsify something (the theory that I came from an ape) with fact when (the theory that I came from an ape) the evidence is speculated together.


And
Evolution is not fact.

 

[philadiddle]

Speciation and adaptation do occur. These are microevolutionary changes or developments. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation.

Please tell me what limits this evolution. As the population continually changes, there must be some kind of mechanism that prevents it from drifting too far from the original template. What is that mechanism? How do you know there are boundaries on evolution?

 

[Tomk80]

Why would you falsify something with fact (which creationist have little of) when it is speculted to be true in order to fit evidence together. What is this evidence?

Evolution is not fact.

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.

 

[USincognito]

The title for this thread is misleading. The "facts" asserted in the OP are wrong and it's not surprising at all that a Creationist would "argue" against evolution with rhetoric rather than evidence.

Evolution is a fact which is explained by the Theory of Evolution.

 

[gamespotter10]

we actually have seen macro evolution

we have seen the culex molestus evolve from the culex pipeins

 

[Belfry]

What is this evidence [for common descent]?

Here are a few general types of evidence, any one of which could be a long thread on its own:

-The nested hierarchy that all organisms can be sorted into, corresponding both to morphological and genetic evidence. (This was observed long before Darwin (in the Linnean classification system). Common descent and the theory of evolution explains it.)

-The progression seen in the fossil record, and the many transitional forms between taxonomic groups.

-Vestigial molecular and anatomical features, and atavisms.

-Biogeography, in the present and in the fossil record.

Why would you falsify something (the theory that I came from an ape) with fact when (the theory that I came from an ape) the evidence is speculated together.

Well, the evidence is real observations, not speculation. But you're absolutely correct, evolutionary theory is based on factual evidence, and contradictory evidence could cause us to revise the theory - our understanding of evolutionary history is constantly revised and refined as we gain new evidence. (As opposed to creationism, which attempts to fit the facts to a preconceived "Truth," and discards evidence which contradicts that Truth).

Evolution is not fact.

You yourself agreed in the OP that all of the mechanisms of evolution are factual and observed. You are saying that common descent isn't fact, and I agree with you. It is a theory, and much like Atomic Theory or Cell Theory, it is a very well-supported one. In science, "theory" doesn't mean wild speculation. It means, roughly, a testable and predictive model or explanation of observed natural phenomena.

 

[plindboe]

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

Evolution is not a fact.

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. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution. What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, 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.

This is from: Michael T. Griffith
These are not my words. I just want them heard.

A curious phenonemon among IDists/creationists this taking well-defined scientific terms and redefining them to suit their needs, as is done here with the words "evolution", "micro-" and "macroevolution".

The problem arise because of the propaganda technique of using certain buzzwords that people latch onto. So when certain IDists began accepting that speciation had been observed they couldn't just stop using these buzzwords, as the words had taken hold in the general populace, and they instead had to redefine them.

It's tragic that people lap up this propaganda, when these well known techniques are so bleedingly obvious to behold.

Peter

 

[MoonLancer]

its not that they "lap it up" its that its being transmitted from one bodily orifice to another.

or to look at it another way, from one generation to the next. poor kids.

*well i guess both happen really...

 

[Tiberius]

What about the evolution of whales?

We have fossils that document the change as whales went from land dwelling animals to aquatic animals. Why is this not macroevolution?

(Psst: A secret - it is macroevolution.)

 

[z3ro]

And
Evolution is not fact.

Sure it is. Just like gravity is a fact. Animals change. Things fall down.

Both are also theories. Gravity tells us why things fall down. Evolution tells us why animals change.

Oh, and between the two, evolution has a larger body of evidence.

 

[MoonLancer]

exactly. We know why evolution happens (natural selection, mutations...etc....) but we fully sure sure of gravity inner workings. Its false to assume we must know these inner workings of gravity for us to show that gravity pulls us to the earth.

 

[elcapitan]

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

No one has "observed" subatomic particles either. It doesn't matter though, because the effects of their existence are measurable. (For the record, though, natural selection has been observed)

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. Microevolution consists of limited change and adaptation. Virtually no one disputes the reality of microevolution. What I mean by "evolution" is macroevolution, or evolution at the macro level, 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.

This is from: Michael T. Griffith
These are not my words. I just want them heard.

First of all, don't argue that abiogenesis is part of evolution. You should know better.

Second, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution, they occur by the same processes. There is no biological pathway that would somehow allow microevolution but also prevent macroevolution.

Until such a pathway is found (if one exists), it does not make sense to say that microevolution is valid but not macroevolution

Besides that, we have a lot of fossils (hopefully you knew that already).

 

[TheGnome]

Why is fossil evidence never sufficient for creationists? This image of the evolution of the horse is a great example of evolution. Another great example is the evolution of the whale. I find it odd that it is claimed that linking the evolution of these fossils together is mere speculation, but what does that mean? Are trained paleontologists merely guessing that the anatomy of a particular fossil is remarkably similar to one found in a time line immediately before it, and one in a time line immediately after it, showing a particular trend? Should we take this as an extraordinary coincidence that those creatures are no longer alive today, nor are there any evidence that those creatures were alive during the same period of time at one point, but yet resemble a clear progression of terrestrial creature to aquatic animal? That's absolutely amazing!

If microevolution didn't lead to macroevolution, then there must be explanation as to why a limit takes a place. What prevents a species to evolve into another species? If it is acceptable for microevolution to take place, a species can evolve many mechanisms to compete against individuals of the same species, individuals of other species, as well as to overcome climate obstacles, and somehow these changes never exceed a certain amount. To a creationist who accepted microevolution, if given a million years, a species separated by two different geographical locations could evolve only to a degree that they can adapt to their current area, but can still produce viable offspring with the other group they were divided from a million years ago. That isn't absurd to that kind of creationist, but it's absurd to a reasonable human being who already knows that scientist have already evolved drosophila in the lab to the point where mating between the old and the new species could no longer produce viable offspring. Maybe this kind of creationist also considers morphology important when discussing macroevolution, not just producing viable offspring; however, microevolution can produce vastly different morphology and it doesn't even have to affect the ability to produce viable offspring--just think of the dog!