the title

[Schroeder]

why do we not seperate the fact of evolution with the not so factual theory of evolution. they are different things all together. one is a FACT the other uses these facts to help make a theory. Yet when you say evolution you usualy speak of the theory. Which of course over time has made one think the theory is very factual. When its not at all factual. and can NEVER be proven to be. But hey i guess close enough is good enough. The theory uses alot of assumption and evolutionary fact with alot of earth science stuff. SO if your speaking of the thoery say it if not say evolution. your just useing trickery to make it seem like a fact. everything that makes the theory seem factual is just merely evolution or facts about earth science. there is nothing that actually proves the theory right.

 

[Keachian]

well the actual name of the theory is the modern evolutionary synthesis. I don't really think I follow your reasoning, a fact is an objective and demonstrably verifiable observation, We build hypotheses and laws out of these and from there the collection of these is commonly referred to as a theory.

 

[Schroeder]

well the actual name of the theory is the modern evolutionary synthesis. I don't really think I follow your reasoning, a fact is an objective and demonstrably verifiable observation, We build hypotheses and laws out of these and from there the collection of these is commonly referred to as a theory.

well al i have ever seen from the theory is merely showing evolution in action. this doesnt make any knew observation. doesnt make a hypothesis to me. you explain evolution in detail add major assumptions and say theory of evolution. the very things you need to make a clear hypothesis or verifiable observation isnt there. They are evolution in action. Like say the theory of gravity. we got nothing actual or physical to prove it fact. BUT the verifiable observation is that when things go up they come back down. the theory as nothing like this, what they use to claim this is just evolution.

 

[Keachian]

The theory does in fact make predictions. They are things like we have a species with characteristic A found in this strata level and a species almost exactly the same but without A in a strata level below we should find species that show this characteristic emerging in the levels between the two, or that Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. I suggest you have a read of this link:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Schroeder]

The theory does in fact make predictions. They are things like we have a species with characteristic A found in this strata level and a species almost exactly the same but without A in a strata level below we should find species that show this characteristic emerging in the levels between the two, or that Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. I suggest you have a read of this link:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dont think it does. they are after the fact predictions. And i notice you cant prove the thoery with just what it deals with biology. you have to bring in earth science. the strata levels do not exsist as they say anywhere on earth. the most layers they have come upon is like what 3. And even then you find what evolution. Its amazing how you can claim such things with bones. usually just a few bones of something at that. All in all its interesting but not convinced at all. to many gaps and guesses or assumptions or hypotheses.

 

[Keachian]

dont think it does. they are after the fact predictions.

Read Origin of Species, Darwin makes several predictions in there quite a few of them to my understanding have been verified.

And i notice you cant prove the thoery with just what it deals with biology. you have to bring in earth science. the strata levels do not exsist as they say anywhere on earth. the most layers they have come upon is like what 3.

Huh? File:SEUtahStrat.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that cliff face has 6 strata. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of where paleontology lies, it is a biological science and it takes what we know from geological science (that is dating of strata and radiometric dating) to understand history.

And even then you find what evolution. Its amazing how you can claim such things with bones. usually just a few bones of something at that. All in all its interesting but not convinced at all. to many gaps and guesses or assumptions or hypotheses.

Are you adverse to speciation(macroevolution)? We have observed speciation, here's a link with instances: Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Schroeder]

Read Origin of Species, Darwin makes several predictions in there quite a few of them to my understanding have been verified.

Dont think i will read it. and i bet it predicts evolution at work. but you could give me one to look at. but thats my prediction.

Huh? File:SEUtahStrat.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that cliff face has 6 strata. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of where paleontology lies, it is a biological science and it takes what we know from geological science (that is dating of strata and radiometric dating) to understand history.

At least what we understand of it anyways. so one place with six strata. like i said most all of it has only one to three.

Are you adverse to speciation(macroevolution)? We have observed speciation, here's a link with instances: Observed Instances of Speciation

No i know what speciation is. its evolution. doersnt prove the theory in the least. Every speciation i have seen has never created a different class. a bird or mammal or whatever never speciated into not what it was, say a mammal to reptile. Alot of examples i have seen have been birds and they stayed birds even the same type bird, just couldnt breed with one another.

 

[Keachian]

Dont think i will read it. and i bet it predicts evolution at work. but you could give me one to look at. but thats my prediction.

I can't remember any off the top of my head and I don't have my copy with me on holidays.

At least what we understand of it anyways. so one place with six strata. like i said most all of it has only one to three.

This isn't evidenced
Stratum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No i know what speciation is. its evolution. doersnt prove the theory in the least. Every speciation i have seen has never created a different class. a bird or mammal or whatever never speciated into not what it was, say a mammal to reptile. Alot of examples i have seen have been birds and they stayed birds even the same type bird, just couldnt breed with one another.

Well what you've seen is what the theory of evolution predicts, you know what else those birds continued to be? They continued to be saurids, tetrapods, vertebrates, craniates and eukaryotes. If they can no longer breed then they are different species.
Have a look into cladistics because this is what the problem in your understanding here is

 

[Schroeder]

Well what you've seen is what the theory of evolution predicts, you know what else those birds continued to be? They continued to be saurids, tetrapods, vertebrates, craniates and eukaryotes. If they can no longer breed then they are different species.
Have a look into cladistics because this is what the problem in your understanding here is

heard this already. there only come back. Its weak. a different species doesnt prove the theory. again they are still the same type bird. A penguin that speciates is still in the end a penguin. and its evolution that predicts this. the theory isnt needed to come to this conclusion or to predict it.

 

[Keachian]

heard this already. there only come back. Its weak. a different species doesnt prove the theory. again they are still the same type bird. A penguin that speciates is still in the end a penguin. and its evolution that predicts this. the theory isnt needed to come to this conclusion or to predict it.

Well what's the explanation, some number of generations ago the two groups of penguins could interbreed and now they can't. They're still both penguins, aren't they by your reasoning they are still the same species, but what is our definition of a species? "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." These two groups are by definition two different species. Then we apply uniformatism and suppose that since our two new groups of penguins came from a singular group that if we go far enough back into history all penguins share the same ancestor, and then further back all birds, further back all saurids and so on.

 

[Schroeder]

Well what's the explanation, some number of generations ago the two groups of penguins could interbreed and now they can't. They're still both penguins, aren't they by your reasoning they are still the same species, but what is our definition of a species? "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." These two groups are by definition two different species. Then we apply uniformatism and suppose that since our two new groups of penguins came from a singular group that if we go far enough back into history all penguins share the same ancestor, and then further back all birds, further back all saurids and so on.

nothing like assumption to bring things together. I thought it might come out like this. evolution is evolution and the theory of evolution is not proven by any means. I would say further back to creation when God created many species of Kinds and they speciated into what we have today. Oh grap i used the word "Kind" that will create a whole new mess of things. this topic used to be rather active. changed it up so the atheist arent in so it has cooled off a bit. It was really interesting then.

 

[Keachian]

nothing like assumption to bring things together. I thought it might come out like this. evolution is evolution and the theory of evolution is not proven by any means. I would say further back to creation when God created many species of Kinds and they speciated into what we have today. Oh grap i used the word "Kind" that will create a whole new mess of things. this topic used to be rather active. changed it up so the atheist arent in so it has cooled off a bit. It was really interesting then.

Uniformitarianism is the principle assumption of all Sciences, to dismiss it as irrelevant basically chucks ALL science out the window.

The other thing is we have the fossils to support the theory that Birds are saurids, tetrapods, etc.

 

[Schroeder]

Uniformitarianism is the principle assumption of all Sciences, to dismiss it as irrelevant basically chucks ALL science out the window.

The other thing is we have the fossils to support the theory that Birds are saurids, tetrapods, etc.

assumption being the key word. It works great until further science changes it. fossils show only so much. the rest is oh yea assumption. its a very deep theory with a lot of evidence of evolution used to try explain a theory they can NEVER have physical proof of. kind of like the theory of gravity. But without the obvious the apple goes up and then comes down. the theory of evolution doesnt even come close to that good of evidence. But hey if you think its helpful for science fine. though i think science works fine with just evolution which is what there useing actually. but think what you want.

 

[Keachian]

I was recommended this website, I thought you might find it interesting as well:
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[Schroeder]

I was recommended this website, I thought you might find it interesting as well:
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

good grief didnt want to spend my whole week on it.