Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Autodidact]

Also new species can arise due to a single mutation. For example nylon eating bacteria came about by a single frame-shift mutation.

Bacteria reproduce rapidly, that's why we are able to observe them evolve. But your hypothesis has to account not only for bacteria, but for elephants, whales and parrots, which do not. Also it was shown that plants can speciate with as little as 10 point mutations, and many times new species are formed via polyploidy in a single generation. That coupled with gene expression due to methylation and histones modifying the epigenetic code, it doesn't take much for species to speciate with the right conditions.[/quote] No, but it does take time.

 

[RedOne77]

I don’t think you understand the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, when they talk about rapid speciation they mean they mean over a period of thousands or tens of thousands of years. This is rapid compared millions or hundreds of millions of years. But still Punctuated Equilibrium requires more time that you believe the earth has been in existence. And I guess you would have to completely ignore the concept of long periods of stability (long being hundreds of millions of years, at least).

I use punk eek to show that a change in environment is a catalyst to 'evolution' to show that through minor genetic changes and a dynamic environment hyper-evolution can occur. I know that punk eek originally states that these changes happen in the area of a million years or so (like they claim with the beginnings of whale evolution), but I take a different application to the idea.

 

[fantome profane]

I use punk eek to show that a change in environment is a catalyst to 'evolution' to show that through minor genetic changes and a dynamic environment hyper-evolution can occur. I know that punk eek originally states that these changes happen in the area of a million years or so (like they claim with the beginnings of whale evolution), but I take a different application to the idea.

What you are doing is at best crudely analogous to punk eek. At worst it a warped misrepresentation of the concept. And I know you wouldn’t want to misrepresent the concept.

 

[Autodidact]

I use punk eek to show that a change in environment is a catalyst to 'evolution' to show that through minor genetic changes and a dynamic environment hyper-evolution can occur. I know that punk eek originally states that these changes happen in the area of a million years or so (like they claim with the beginnings of whale evolution), but I take a different application to the idea.

Or, to put it differently, you appropriate the hard work of these scientists and distort it to fit your preconceived conclusion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's easy. Theory is an attempt to prove what cannot be proven.​

Epic failure....​

 

[tumbleweed41]

Be my guest, feel free to start with the age of the Earth or the universe.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/93692-facts-relating-evolution.html

 

[RedOne77]

Yes, but punk eek also says that the entire ToE is correct. This is more cherry picking.

Well no theory is perfect.

Now you're just freely making stuff up. Can we have some relationship to some facts? Also I'm way confused--I thought you thought the flood was a local phenomenon.

Are you saying that a global flood would not impact the environment of populations? In the vicinity of Noah (what he can see) everything was killed (save the Ark), but outside what he could see things survived. How else could the dove get an olive branch after the flood?

First, it's not Biblical. Second, again--no evidence for any such thing. I've never understood how you can have a flood so violent it carves thousands of feet of rock canyon, but leaves floating islands undisturbed.

Are you saying I'm making up floating islands? They are real, and you might want to do some research on them if you think they are made up. I think the largest recorded was around 15 miles long a few hundred feet wide; they are known to have trees up to 50 feet tall on them. Not every single area of the globe got the same conditions, in some areas it was very violent, in others it was relatively peaceful. Imagine if the Ark was in conditions where the water could cut through solid rock? I doubt it would have lasted a night in those waters.

Ha ha, funny typo if you review. Anyway, "very rapid" means hundreds of generations. Again, you don't have time for hundreds of generations.

Ahem, 'founder effect'. I should have just left fantome's post alone because I'm just going to say the same thing here. I use punk eek to show that a change in environment is a catalyst to 'evolution' to show that through minor genetic changes and a dynamic environment hyper-evolution can occur. I know that punk eek originally states that these changes happen in the area of a million years or so (like they claim with the beginnings of whale evolution), but I take a different application to the idea.

Again, "short time," in evolutionary terms, means a few hundred generations. Remember, you need enough time for 2000 speciation events. You have time for maybe a single speciation event, and that's for bats alone. If you include beetles, ants, mice, etc., etc, you have speciation events every year--heck, every month. And that is not what we observe.

If you have multiple populations you can have several speciations occurring at the same time. Often evolutionists claim that creationists use straw-men when proclaiming that 'mutations must occur in the right place at the right time' by saying that it is not a single organism, rather a multitude of organisms each with their own mutations. So why not implement the same thing to many populations in accordance to emergent properties? Many populations, many speciations.

By trying to combine ToE and YEC, you get a sort of hyper-evolution that is not what we in fact observe, and for which there is not evidence. In fact, this sort of hyper-evolution violates the ToE you claim to accept.

Indeed some things are problematic to YEC, but not every problem should be faced with hostility. For a long time evolutionists couldn't account for the fossil record and transitional species, surely this must have destroyed the ToE right? No, it became a research opportunity and they came up with punctuated equilibrium, salvaged evolution, and retained it as the scientifically accepted theory. Why must every hole in creationism crumble the entire model? Why can't these 'problems' be looked at as research opportunities like every other field of science implements? Whether consciously or not, evolutionists dismiss all of creationism based on holes while vivaciously contending that any gaps in evolutionary knowledge are either unimportant or areas of research that will undoubtedly strengthen evolutionary theory once understood. This could be seen a few years ago with the synthesis of life; only a little while back scientists frankly stated that they had no idea how life could have gotten here via natural processes and it didn't look like it was possible at all. But it didn't stop people zealously stating that life arose by purely natural processes and that scientists will one day synthesize life.

Edit

No, but it does take time.

"No" to what exactly?

 

[tumbleweed41]

A theory is accepted as fact not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, nor is it based on a presupposed definition, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be "falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.
For example, the Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could produce results that contradicted the ToE, so the theory is falsifiable.
The aforementioned "Facts" are observations and the results of experiments that have verified, rather than contradicted the ToE.
If the various tests for, say, the age of the Earth, contradicted what was predicted in the ToE, then the contradiction would result in the discarding of the theory as it is.
Just as all tests and observations in genetic makeup verify what is predicted in the ToE. Darwin did not know about DNA, but his predictions were verified, rather than contradicted once DNA was tested to see if it matched the predictions.

Now, if a "Young Earth Creation Scientist" were to posit that "man was created by a deity exactly as he is today, and this creation occurred between 6,000- 10,000 yrs ago." Then we would have to look at what is scientifically falsifiable, and what is based on faith.
Deity-Faith based. This claim is not falsifiable as it can neither be proven true or untrue.
Created as is between 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.-Falsifiable. This claim can be verified by finding a sudden appearance in the fossil record of homo sapiens sapiens within the last 6,000-10,000 yrs with no evidence of previous existence of homo sapiens. Or contradicted by finding evidence of hominid to homo sapiens gradual appearance. This claim has been contradicted by results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/93692-facts-relating-evolution-4.html

 

[Gabethewiking]

RedOne, it gets worse and worse, now you just sound like an ordinary History denier, please stop this, you said you knew about Evolution and yet to talk like someone who does not.

1. Fossils have nothing to do with ToE veracity, it is a BONUS we find fossils.
2. Everything is "transitional species".

And Finally..

3. Any "hole" in the Theory of Evolution that would be falsified would make us throw out ToE as a model.


Evolution is a Fact, whatever opinion you have RedOne is irrelevant to this Fact, whatever beliefs you have are irrelevant to this Fact, whatever I or anyone else accept Evolution is irrelevant to its Fact. Please understand this.

The Theory of Evolution explains the Fact of Evolution (above), it is so far the best explanation of the world we see today by Natural Selection, no other model has come up, if it would be incorrect, this does not change the Fact of Evolution, only that we would have to find what it is that truly makes it run, millions of Scientist are working just today to try to Disprove the Theory of Evolution for various reason, be it Religious or Monetary, and whatever is found is irrelevant to the Fact of Evolution.

Why do you not listen?

 

[corynski]

The fossils of evolution are contained in the physical rock strata of the earth, that is the fact of evolution. And the record is falsifiable, if you find a human skeleton next to a dinosaur then we know evolution is wrong.

Ideas regarding how evolution occurs are derived from factual evidence assembled into theories that can be tested and verified, or discarded. Standard scientific method.

Jerry Coyne has a good video discussing this, as does P.Z. Meyers.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne, it gets worse and worse, now you just sound like an ordinary History denier, please stop this, you said you knew about Evolution and yet to talk like someone who does not.

1. Fossils have nothing to do with ToE veracity, it is a BONUS we find fossils.

I never said anything about fossils, I don't know where you think I said anything about them.

2. Everything is "transitional species".

I never said anything about transitional species either.

I really don't know what this has to do with anything that I said.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

And Finally..

3. Any "hole" in the Theory of Evolution that would be falsified would make us throw out ToE as a model.

Actually no. Take a look at Newtonian Mechanics. There are holes in it, but it is not thrown out and it is still taught in high school and college level physics. Even if we find something that goes against X theory, it doesn't necessarily equate to tossing it out, if it is still the best natural explanation than scientists have to run with it until something else comes along; that is the nature of science.

Evolution

is a Fact, whatever opinion you have RedOne is irrelevant to this Fact, whatever beliefs you have are irrelevant to this Fact, whatever I or anyone else accept Evolution is irrelevant to its Fact. Please understand this.

I'm aware that changes in allele frequency and speciation have been observed; I've never denied the fact that populations changed over time. In fact I've specifically stated several times that I accept speciation and even evolution at the genus level.

The Theory of Evolution explains the Fact of Evolution (above), it is so far the best explanation of the world we see today by Natural Selection, no other model has come up, if it would be incorrect, this does not change the Fact of Evolution, only that we would have to find what it is that truly makes it run, millions of Scientist are working just today to try to Disprove the Theory of Evolution for various reason, be it Religious or Monetary, and whatever is found is irrelevant to the Fact of Evolution.

Why do you not listen?

I never said that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the fact of evolution; I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else. Maybe next time you'll actually address my posts instead of ranting on about things I've never mentioned.

Why do you not listen?

 

[Gabethewiking]

Actually no. Take a look at Newtonian Mechanics. There are holes in it, but it is not thrown out and it is still taught in high school and college level physics. Even if we find something that goes against X theory, it doesn't necessarily equate to tossing it out, if it is still the best natural explanation than scientists have to run with it until something else comes along; that is the nature of science.

I knew you would misunderstand, I formulated myself poorly, never mind and irrelevant. I'll sneak out of explaining that way

I'm aware that changes in allele frequency and speciation have been observed; I've never denied the fact that populations changed over time. In fact I've specifically stated several times that I accept speciation and even evolution at the genus level.

But this makes no sense Red, you deny that Humans and other Animals have a common ancestor, so you cant accept the above without accepting that. You see the problem? You cant pick and choose.

 

[outhouse]

The theory of evolution is an unproven belief.

5 years later, do you know that evolution is fact ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think that both are sort of intertwined and I think this article puts it well. Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you wouldn't mind telling me. What do you think is difference between creationism and intelligent design?

The terms. They say "Designer" instead of "God" and they changed "Created" to "Designed".

The original group who proposed this just had their creationist proposal shot down and they took the same manuscript and changed some of the key words that were religious in nature. The original reason it was thrown out was because it was religious rather than scientific. However it should have simply been thrown out for not being science. But anyway as history goes they kept the same model and changed the words. Same mess but in different piles.

I think my favorite quote about it I can't remember who said it. "Painting a car doesn't fix the engine."

 

[Ouroboros]

I think my favorite quote about it I can't remember who said it. "Painting a car doesn't fix the engine."

No, but you can make a pig dam' sexy with some makeup...

 

[Sapiens]

I think that both are sort of intertwined and I think this article puts it well. Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you wouldn't mind telling me. What do you think is difference between creationism and intelligent design?

Court in Dover said there is no difference.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be "falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.

you mean like multiverse theory? M theory? apparently waivers are granted for theories that align with certain preferred implications

For example, the Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could produce results that contradicted the ToE, so the theory is falsifiable.

predictions like constant gradual incremental change
versus the actual observations
"It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (Dawkins)

A theory is accepted as fact not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, nor is it based on a presupposed definition, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce

like Piltdown man?

Mark Twain put it another way
[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact

 

[McBell]

you mean like multiverse theory? M theory? apparently waivers are granted for theories that align with certain preferred implications




predictions like constant gradual incremental change
versus the actual observations
"It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. (Dawkins)



like Piltdown man?

Mark Twain put it another way
[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact

Sad that you have to resort to such dishonesty.

Perhaps if you were to catch yourself up on the current science behind evolution and stop relying on seriously outdated material you would not lose so much credibility?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The terms. They say "Designer" instead of "God" and they changed "Created" to "Designed".

The original group who proposed this just had their creationist proposal shot down and they took the same manuscript and changed some of the key words that were religious in nature. The original reason it was thrown out was because it was religious rather than scientific. However it should have simply been thrown out for not being science. But anyway as history goes they kept the same model and changed the words. Same mess but in different piles.

I think my favorite quote about it I can't remember who said it. "Painting a car doesn't fix the engine."

....intelligent design is generally silent on the question about a designer. It is same like if we considered how Bach created his music, without talking about what emotions Bach had in his heart by which he created the music. We are merely describing the technical details how it was chosen, without letting any opinion into it, that is intelligent design theory broadly.

While with creationism opinions are discussed as well, besides the facts of how things are chosen.

 

[Jonathan Sherman]

My comment probably doesn't belong here, but I have found something very interesting. It says in the Talmud, which was written sometime between 200-400 CE, it says that there are 10^18 stars in the universe. It's fascinating because all the astronomers of the day thought that there were no more than 8000 stars, so no one could have even imaged that there were this many.