The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[USincognito]

The theory of evolution has been preached as a scientific fact by evolutionists for decades. From National Geographic to the Smithsonian, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and many other big names in the scientific community that have great influence. In schools, higher education institutions it is taught as a scientific fact, and in museums it's treated as a scientific fact. Even taxpayers money is used for textbooks to teach it as scientific fact. Popular culture also play a part in treating it as a proven fact.

Most importantly thousands of papers published in scientific journals over the last 100 years demonstrate it to be a fact.

Regardless of the consequences of treating a hypothesis (especially of that caliber) as a scientific fact,

1. Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.
2. That evolution happened is a fact. Period.

false information is being presented to the masses, and it's really difficult for real science to be heard or to gain a platform.

What "false information"? And what "real science"?

Sure, we can see it as "pretty convincing", but without any actual scientific method to experiment or test the hypothesis but just have faith in it being true, that's just not good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually antiscience.

I'm going to guess that you have no idea what experimentation and testing has been conducted to support evolution. If you did, you wouldn't aver things like this.

 

[USincognito]

its clear that a whale and a cat are a different creatures.

But are they both eutherians? Both amniotes? Both terrestrial tetrapods?

 

[Allandavid]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Sandwalk: Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Thank you. I think I may have misunderstood the basis of his claim. I thought he was asserting that science views our understanding of evolution as a monolithic, unchanging body of knowledge.

 

[USincognito]

Is English not your first language? For the third time, if you'd like to falsify evolution, find a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers. Why is it that no such fossil has ever been found do you think...?

Some folks are especially immune to correction. I remember some guy who posted for a while "lifetimepsyop" or something like that, and he absolutely insisted that, for example, a bird with wings and arms could have evolved from some common ancestor (perhaps an echinoderm) that had more than four limbs or that scientists would just chalk it up to convergent evolution.

They don't appear to actually understand evolution, but they're convinced it's unscientific and they cannot allow reality to intrude on their preset conclusion.

 

[USincognito]

surprise: humans indeed have genes for feathers development:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/

so evolution is false now?

You really need to stop with the "gotcha" question shtick and just post this stuff when you think it's germane. That way we can explain why you're misunderstanding it and you don't wind up with egg on your face.

>> It may seem strange to consider the fact that you, as a mammal, have all the known genes required to pattern a feather, and yet you do not look like Big Bird. The reason for this discrepancy is that genes can do different jobs. Depending on where and when they make their proteins, they can build different kinds of anatomy. <<

Basically we have the same genes that are used in feather development but we don't have genes to develop feathers. I know that (seemingly simple) difference can be befuddling to Creationists, but it's really quite simple. As the part I quoted shows, genes can make different things. Sonic Hedgehog for example not only helps hind limbs develop, but is what gives us five fingers and, when it malfunctions in utero, explains polydactyly.

By your "logic" the fact that melanocytes produce skin color in humans and plumage color in birds would falsify evolution. It doesn't. You just don't understand it was well as you think you do.
https://phys.org/news/2013-04-patterns-bird-feathers.html

 

[xianghua]

You really need to stop with the "gotcha" question shtick and just post this stuff when you think it's germane. That way we can explain why you're misunderstanding it and you don't wind up with egg on your face.

that was allandavid prediction about how to falsified evolution. so i prove that even if we will find a mammal with genes for feathers evolution will not be falsified. are you agree or disagree with allandavid prediction? if you agree- then evolution is already false. if you disagree- then you prove once again why evolution isnt science.

 

[Allandavid]

that was allandavid prediction about how to falsified evolution. so i prove that even if we will find a mammal with genes for feathers evolution will not be falsified. are you agree or disagree with allandavid prediction? if you agree- then evolution is already false. if you disagree- then you prove once again why evolution isnt science.

Now you are being dishonest. I said that, if you could find a fossil mammal WITH FEATHERS, then it would be falsified. Why do you find it necessary to play with the truth in order to further your argument?

 

[xianghua]

Now you are being dishonest. I said that, if you could find a fossil mammal WITH FEATHERS, then it would be falsified. Why do you find it necessary to play with the truth in order to further your argument?

sorry, but what is difference between a mammal with genes for feathers and a mammal with genes for feathers development?

 

[pitabread]

that was allandavid prediction about how to falsified evolution. so i prove that even if we will find a mammal with genes for feathers evolution will not be falsified. are you agree or disagree with allandavid prediction? if you agree- then evolution is already false. if you disagree- then you prove once again why evolution isnt science.

Did you read the link in question? Because it sounds like you didn't.

 

[USincognito]

Did you read the link in question? Because it sounds like you didn't.

Of course not. It's just Google scholarship with a few keywords and what they think supports their "gotcha". Too many Creationists want to approach this issue as lawyers rather than scientists.

 

[USincognito]

sorry, but what is difference between a mammal with genes for feathers and a mammal with genes for feathers development?

Not to be too harsh, but why are you continuing to be so dishonest? Allandavid did not say "a mammal with genes for feathers". He said "a mammal with feathers" Also the article you cited does not say mammals have "genes for feathers". It says that mammals have the same genes used in the development of feathers. As I noted, that's no different than mammals and birds sharing melanocytes for skin/fur and plumage coloration.

 

[xianghua]

Allandavid did not say "a mammal with genes for feathers". He said "a mammal with feathers"

what is the difference? if a mammal have genes for feathers its means of course that he can have feathers too.

Also the article you cited does not say mammals have "genes for feathers". It says that mammals have the same genes used in the development of feathers.

again; if a mammal have genes for feathers development, then its means that he can have genes for feathers too, without any problem for evolution. so where is the "prediction" here?

 

[pitabread]

what is the difference? if a mammal have genes for feathers its means of course that he can have feathers too.

You really need to read the full articles you link to. From that article :

It may seem strange to consider the fact that you, as a mammal, have all the known genes required to pattern a feather, and yet you do not look like Big Bird. The reason for this discrepancy is that genes can do different jobs. Depending on where and when they make their proteins, they can build different kinds of anatomy. But it didn’t take much rewiring of genetic switches to turn the scaly skin of early reptiles into feathers.

 

[xianghua]

You really need to read the full articles you link to. From that article :

no. again: if a creature can have genes for feathers without a problem for evolution then even if it will have feathers it will not make any problem for evolution.

 

[pitabread]

no. again: if a creature can have genes for feathers without a problem for evolution then even if it will have feathers it will not make any problem for evolution.

I think you're missing the point: the genes in other species aren't necessarily specifically for feathers. As well, if you read the article, it references specific genetic sequences that evolved after the fact related to feather production. Genes don't work in isolation.

 

[sfs]

no. again: if a creature can have genes for feathers without a problem for evolution then even if it will have feathers it will not make any problem for evolution.

Yeah, we get that you think that. You're wrong.

 

[USincognito]

what is the difference? if a mammal have genes for feathers its means of course that he can have feathers too.

That was to clarify the point. Davidallen was saying that we would not expect to find a derived characteristic in a different lineage. You did not present an example of a derived characteristic in a different lineage.

again; if a mammal have genes for feathers development,....

I'll just stop you right there because you're misunderstanding the study you're citing. Mammals don't have genes for feathers or genes for feather development. We have genes that, in birds, are used for gene development. This is akin, I have pointed out twice now, the mammals and birds both having melanocytes, but one lineages uses them for skin/fur color while the other uses them to color plumage.

Speaking of melanin. Humans and zebrafish share the SLC24A5 gene because of common ancestry.
A fish of a different color

 

[xianghua]

I'll just stop you right there because you're misunderstanding the study you're citing. Mammals don't have genes for feathers or genes for feather development. We have genes that, in birds, are used for gene development.

true. so it will be no problem for evolution if we will find a mammal with feathers.

 

[Skreeper]

true. so there will no problem for evolution if we will find a mammal with feathers.

It is getting really frustrating because people try to explain this to you but you still repeat your nonsensical statements.

It would be a problem for evolution if we found a mammal that actually has feathers. So far we have found none.

 

[pitabread]

It is getting really frustrating because people try to explain this to you but you still repeat your nonsensical statements.

There appears to be an assumption of a certain amount of base knowledge that, based on the various responses, does not appear to be there. That appears to be where the disconnect is happening.