Evolution by Natural Selection is a fact

[Mazzyhere]

Painted Wolf said

What is this "your researchers" stuff?

No my comments reflected the status quo of the links you provided in two posts, none of which were a demonstration of macroevolution, nor claimed to be.

I'm skeptical that you read this... as it's not a paper at all but a symposium made up of several talks about the fact of evolution.

I have plenty of them. That is just one that also states that macroevolution is not demonstrated in the lab or experimentally manipulated. Do you still disagree?

Painted Wolf I am not going to go over everything. You are struggling for nothing. The point I have made is that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in the lab and I have evolutionary researchers that are well credentailled to say it is not a creationist fabrication. There have been no examples offered of macroevolution that has been observed, horses or no horses.

As for the research on birds here is the title etc. It suggests there is evidence that Theropods may not be monophletic and that research to date may be producing misleading studies on birds. It is published research.

Cladistics and The Origin of Birds - A review and two new analyses - 2009 - Editor John Faarborg.

That is not important at present. What is important now, I think, is that there are no first hand observations of macroevolution and evolutionists evidences for natural selection can only relate to microevolution at present. I don't think that is up for debate. It is a fact.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay...in all fairness...I didn't read the entire thread.
looks to be another deny God for the sake of science argument, anyway.

So we are certain that God....the Creator...The Almighty....
doesn't have what it takes to tweak a molecule whenever He sees fit?

Wrong.

This thread has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god or deity.

Now, back to the topic of biological evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

No my comments reflected the status quo of the links you provided in two posts, none of which were a demonstration of macroevolution, nor claimed to be.

No it was an attempt to "otherize" and belittle. That is the only reason for the use of the phrase "your researchers" and it has no place in an honest discussion.

I have plenty of them. That is just one that also states that macroevolution is not demonstrated in the lab or experimentally manipulated. Do you still disagree?

Speciation is macroevolution... and it has been demonstrated.
Macroevolution at deeper timeframes is naturally not going to happen in a short term lab experiment.

Painted Wolf I am not going to go over everything. You are struggling for nothing. The point I have made is that macroevolution has not been demonstrated in the lab and I have evolutionary researchers that are well credentailled to say it is not a creationist fabrication. There have been no examples offered of macroevolution that has been observed, horses or no horses.

Macroevolution as you are using it... as it is defined in population genetics (where it originates) it has.

As for the research on birds here is the title etc. It suggests there is evidence that Theropods may not be monophletic and that research to date may be producing misleading studies on birds. It is published research.

Cladistics and The Origin of Birds - A review and two new analyses - 2009 - Editor John Faarborg.

Based on a single, notoriously wretched fossil that isn't even an archosaur like the paper claims. My guess is he never actually looked at the fossil. The anatomy has never been formally described so how can he code for it?
They can't even tell what the skull looks like or if the "plumes" are genuine or plant matter.

The information on hand morphology is out of date and frankly... where are the fossils? This paper proposes a whole slew of critters for which there isn't a single trace in the fossil record. Not a one.

Like I said... no serious alternatives have been proposed.

That is not important at present. What is important now, I think, is that there are no first hand observations of macroevolution and evolutionists evidences for natural selection can only relate to microevolution at present. I don't think that is up for debate. It is a fact.

There are no firsthand observations in most science. We have no firsthand observations that viruses cause the flu, but we still vaccinate.
We have no firsthand observations of radioactive decay, but we still avoid touching plutonium.
We have no firsthand observations of the building of Stonehenge but we don't accept aliens did it.
You can't observe firsthand the existence of most extrasolar planets, but that doesn't stop us from finding them.

Science does not rely solely on first hand observations.

wa:do

 

[David M]

Not to be rude, but is everything published fact and even in the field of science do they not work on the premise of theories and laws which could be disproved at some point in time?

The problem with your argument is that any new Theory has to provide a better explanation of the facts than the old theory.

Allele frequencies in populations change over time, that is a fact. Speciation is a fact. The nested hierarchies produced by both morphology genetics is a fact. The fossil record is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact. Genetic Drift is a fact. Random mutations can add "information" and that is also a fact.

 

[Mazzyhere]

No it was an attempt to "otherize" and belittle. That is the only reason for the use of the phrase "your researchers" and it has no place in an honest discussion.

Well I am sorry you took it that way. Do please let me know how you would like me to refer to research. Your, theirs, just researchers perhaps. Of course I used 'your' to indicate evolutionary researchers. I again am sorry if that offends you.

Speciation is macroevolution... and it has been demonstrated.
Macroevolution at deeper timeframes is naturally not going to happen in a short term lab experiment.

Make up your mind. Macroevolution can only be demonstrated in the fossil record and not in the lab

No, it actually is not Painted Wolf no matter how many times you repeat it. Speciation within species level ie microevolution, is all that has been demonstrated and all that was demonstrated in all the links you or anyone has provided.

Macroevolution as you are using it... as it is defined in population genetics (where it originates) it has.

Population genetics demonstrates macroevolution less than the links you provided do.

The term macroevolution, as I use it, is the way the term is meant to be used and the way the term is used by anyone, evolutionary researcher or not, that really wants to know and doesn't just want to confuse the conversation just for the sake of it!

Based on a single, notoriously wretched fossil that isn't even an archosaur like the paper claims. My guess is he never actually looked at the fossil. The anatomy has never been formally described so how can he code for it?
They can't even tell what the skull looks like or if the "plumes are genuine or plant matter.

You may guess, and the paper remains published work from 2009.

It is strange though that usually wretched fossils are acceptable so long as they support TOE, is that the case? The work was based on much so I still am unsure what you are talking about here.

The information on hand morphology is out of date and frankly... where are the fossils? This paper proposes a whole slew of critters for which there isn't a single trace in the fossil record. Not a one.

Like I said... no serious alternatives have been proposed.

What are you taliking about, Painted Wolf? This article is much more recent, 2009, than anything anyone else has produced, come to think of it. Alternatives have certianly been proposed. The lack of alternatives does not mean the nested hierarchy currently presented has any basis for credibility.

There are no firsthand observations in most science. We have no firsthand observations that viruses cause the flu, but we still vaccinate.
We have no firsthand observations of radioactive decay, but we still avoid touching plutonium.
We have no firsthand observations of the building of Stonehenge but we don't accept aliens did it.
You can't observe firsthand the existence of most extrasolar planets, but that doesn't stop us from finding them.

Science does not rely solely on first hand observations.

wa:do

Well then after all the discussion you finally appear to agree with me that there are no observed first hand observations of macroevolution. Thankyou.

Speciation has been observed but only within species level, and not above species level. To say that what researchers have observed in speciation are examples of macroevolution is incorrect and misrepresentative, I think, and most evolutionary researchers would agree with me. Even the lizards with a cecal valve were genetically identical to the source population. None of the examples presented so far are examples of observed macroevolution. You may wish to claim the fossil evidence or nested hierarchies provides support for macroevolution but it has not been observed first hand.

I did not say that because you have no observed instances of macroevolution that evolution must be false, so you did not need to get defensive with conversation about virus, radiation and Stonehenge.

I simply said that there is no observed first hand evidence of macroevolution and any natural selection that has been observed has been within species level. That statement is correct and nothing has been put up to change that and now it appears you may agree.

 

[painted wolf]

Well I am sorry you took it that way. Do please let me know how you would like me to refer to research. Your, theirs, just researchers perhaps. Of course I used 'your' to indicate evolutionary researchers. I again am sorry if that offends you.

No, it actually is not Painted Wolf no matter how many times you repeat it. Speciation within species level ie microevolution, is all that has been demonstrated and all that was demonstrated in all the links you or anyone has provided.

Population genetics demonstrates macroevolution less than the links you provided do.

The term macroevolution, as I use it, is the way the term is meant to be used and the way the term is used by anyone, evolutionary researcher or not, that really wants to know and doesn't just want to confuse the conversation just for the sake of it!

You may guess, and the paper remains published work from 2009.

It is strange though that usually wretched fossils are acceptable so long as they support TOE, is that the case? The work was based on much so I still am unsure what you are talking about here.

What are you taliking about, Painted Wolf? This article is much more recent, 2009, than anything anyone else has produced, come to think of it. Alternatives have certianly been proposed. The lack of alternatives does not mean the nested hierarchy currently presented has any basis for credibility.

Well then after all the discussion you finally appear to agree with me that there are no observed first hand observations of macroevolution. Thankyou.

Speciation has been observed but only within species level, and not above species level. To say that what researchers have observed in speciation are examples of macroevolution is incorrect and misrepresentative, I think, and most evolutionary researchers would agree with me. Even the lizards with a cecal valve were genetically identical to the source population. None of the examples presented so far are examples of observed macroevolution.

I did not say that because you have no observed instances of macroevolution that evolution must be false, so you did not need to get defensive with conversation about virus, radiation and Stonehenge.

I simply said that there is no observed first hand evidence of macroevolution and any natural selection that has been observed has been within species level. That statement is correct and nothing has been put up to change that and now it appears you may agree.

How can you have speciation above species level?

And you better let the rest of biology know they have been using the wrong definition for macroevolution!
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the bird paper... More recent than anyone? I guess you don't do much reading of the literature then.
Just about every paper published on theropod dinosaurs covers the subject.
Here are a few:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10288.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
A late-surviving basal theropod dinosaur from the latest Triassic of North America
The evolution of cranial form and function in theropod dinosaurs: insights from geometric morphometrics - BRUSATTE - 2011 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library
Exceptionally preserved juvenile megalosauroid theropod dinosaur with filamentous integument from the Late Jurassic of Germany

And no... such poorly preserved fossils aren't used in these sorts of phylogenetic work. I mean that thing is seriously messed up.
Which is exactly why it's not discussed in the literature outside of these attempts to cram it into a "non-dinosaur bird ancestor". It's simply too badly preserved to be useful.
The truth is, with every new feathered dinosaur we discover (and it's been a couple to a few every year) the dinosaur-bird link is further established and the more sad the lack of any good fossil evidence for alternatives makes them look.

wa:do

 

[Mazzyhere]

How can you have speciation above species level?

And you better let the rest of biology know they have been using the wrong definition for macroevolution!
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the bird paper... More recent than anyone? I guess you don't do much reading of the literature then.
Just about every paper published on theropod dinosaurs covers the subject.
Here are a few:
Journal home
WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110

And no... such poorly preserved fossils aren't used in these sorts of phylogenetic work. I mean that thing is seriously messed up.
Which is exactly why it's not discussed in the literature outside of these attempts to cram it into a "non-dinosaur bird ancestor". It's simply too badly preserved to be useful.
The truth is, with every new feathered dinosaur we discover (and it's been a couple to a few every year) the dinosaur-bird link is further established and the more sad the lack of any good fossil evidence for alternatives makes them look.

wa:do

The point remains researchers have not observed macroevolution in the lab or experiments no matter how you struggle with this and no matter how many links you post. You may put up as many confused faces as you wish if that makes you feel better.

If you do not know what speciation above species level is exactly then you would be no different than researchers who are discussing it still. One thing for sure, it is none of the examples you have provided which I am sure these researchers know about. It is not a creationist paper. Apparently, the researchers in the 2 articles I refered to understand the terms correctly, so do I. If you believe you know better than they, :cover: and you are going to struggle over it as evolutionists feel the need to do, then God bless you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The point remains researchers have not observed macroevolution in the lab or experiments

Yeah um, this has already been shown to you to be untrue.

 

[Thief]

Wrong.

This thread has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a god or deity.

Now, back to the topic of biological evolution.

Here's one for you .
This topic is listed under religious debates/evolution vs creationism.

So you thought you could leave God out of the discussion?
It's His creation.

 

[fantome profane]

Here's one for you .
This topic is listed under religious debates/evolution vs creationism.

So you thought you could leave God out of the discussion?
It's His creation.

For the one billionth time. Evolution is not atheism.

 

[Thief]

For the one billionth time. Evolution is not atheism.

So you would concede, the exclusion of God as...inappropriate?

 

[Thief]

So here we are again...as many billions of times as a creative action can happen...a previous post.

So we are certain that God....the Creator...The Almighty....
doesn't have what it takes to tweak a molecule whenever He sees fit?

 

[mycorrhiza]

So you would concede, the exclusion of God as...inappropriate?

Nope, it's scientific to exclude God from science itself as God isn't falsifiable. Believing that evolution happened has nothing to do with being an atheist, but a non-falsifiable concept simply has no place in science. I'm not sure on the subject, but I would say that a majority of all scientists who believe in evolution are also religious.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

So you would concede, the exclusion of God as...inappropriate?

Evolution theory itself makes no claims regarding God one way or the other. No scientific theory does. For a scientific paper to explicitly state that God does not exist because of X would definitely be inappropriate.

 

[Thief]

Nope, it's scientific to exclude God from science itself as God isn't falsifiable. Believing that evolution happened has nothing to do with being an atheist, but a non-falsifiable concept simply has no place in science. I'm not sure on the subject, but I would say that a majority of all scientists who believe in evolution are also religious.

A yes....we who believe in evolution also believe in God.

When speaking of an Almighty creative force...
The manipulation of a molecule is so small....but so influencing.

Not much of a chemical difference between ape and Man....so I've heard.
And God is not allowed to tweak His creation?

If no intervening had taken place...
The sudden diversion of Man from the animal kingdom might not have happened.

Our lesser form had acquired the ability to reach for food and evade predators. Further 'natural selection' would have stopped.

Without that Garden event...(interpret as you care to for now)
The lesser form of Man would have populated the planet.
No higher level of spirit would have gelled.

 

[mycorrhiza]

A yes....we who believe in evolution also believe in God.

When speaking of an Almighty creative force...
The manipulation of a molecule is so small....but so influencing.

Not much of a chemical difference between ape and Man....so I've heard.
And God is not allowed to tweak His creation?

If no intervening had taken place...
The sudden diversion of Man from the animal kingdom might not have happened.

Our lesser form had acquired the ability to reach for food and evade predators. Further 'natural selection' would have stopped.

Without that Garden event...(interpret as you care to for now)
The lesser form of Man would have populated the planet.
No higher level of spirit would have gelled.

There is no evidence for this intervention. Evolution doesn't claim anything about whether or not God exists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Here's one for you .
This topic is listed under religious debates/evolution vs creationism.

So you thought you could leave God out of the discussion?
It's His creation.

Creationism requires an interventionist deity and frequently denies natural processes.
Biological evolution does not require an interventionist deity and relies on natural processes.
Whether or not a deity exists is irrelevant and is a matter of personal faith.

Personally, I believe the natural process is a much greater accomplishment of a deity than the reliance on supernatural explanations and pseudoscience. But my belief in a
deity has no impact on the natural processes of the universe.

 

[Thief]

There is no evidence for this intervention. Evolution doesn't claim anything about whether or not God exists.

And so...evolution does not exclude it's Creator.

 

[Thief]

Creationism requires an interventionist deity and frequently denies natural processes.
Biological evolution does not require an interventionist deity and relies on natural processes.
Whether or not a deity exists is irrelevant and is a matter of personal faith.

Personally, I believe the natural process is a much greater accomplishment of a deity than the reliance on supernatural explanations and pseudoscience. But my belief in a
deity has no impact on the natural processes of the universe.

Could you then picture a Deity sitting back and watching as the dice roll...
with each new born?

Could you than picture a Deity, content to leave it alone?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Could you then picture a Deity sitting back and watching as the dice roll...
with each new born?

Could you than picture a Deity, content to leave it alone?

Uh..yeah...


(Hint, I'm a Deist)



But again, the existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the facts of biological evolution.