Evolution is a fact, and a theory

[Man of Faith]

Do you accept macro evolution?

Wikipedia says the following:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[18][19]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

Again, definitions are changing, now macroevolution is merely speciation, but defining a species is elusive. When people say that speciation is evidence for macroevolution that is a misunderstanding of the creation model. The species level is below the family level in the taxonomic ranking system and creation usually draws the line at the family level of change.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let me explain why that answer is unsatisfactory. A scientific theory is the strongest definition of something that is testable and repeatable. The theory of electricity, or gravity as examples. Now a model is not as strong as a theory, such as the creation model for example. So theories and models don’t mix. If there is a change in allele frequency that can be observed and duplicated in the lab, then a scientific theory can be made to describe it. That is where the theory of evolution stops and the model of common descent picks up.

A theory is a model. A model describes how something works. So does a theory. They are usually the same thing. The "theory" of gravity doesn't exist, because there are multiple theories and models to explain something we know happens, which used to be understood simply by the "attraction" between things with mass. Instead we have varying models and theories of spacetime curvatures and how these may incorporate quantum theory. There is no theory of electricity either. And evolution is better understood than gravity, which requires understanding the entire structure of the universe.

 

[Man of Faith]

A theory is a model.

The modern scientific community disagrees with you.

Differences between theory and model
Main article: conceptual model
Several commentators[32] have stated that the distinguishing characteristic of theories is that they are explanatory as well as descriptive, while models are only descriptive (although still predictive in a more limited sense). Philosopher Stephen Pepper also distinguished between theories and models, and said in 1948 that general models and theories are predicated on a "root" metaphor that constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses.
Engineering practice makes a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models."[citation

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The modern scientific community disagrees with you.

Differences between theory and model
Main article: conceptual model
Several commentators[32] have stated that the distinguishing characteristic of theories is that they are explanatory as well as descriptive, while models are only descriptive (although still predictive in a more limited sense). Philosopher Stephen Pepper also distinguished between theories and models, and said in 1948 that general models and theories are predicated on a "root" metaphor that constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses.
Engineering practice makes a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models."[citation

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wasn't aware that as part of the modern scientific community, I was supposed to rely on wikipedia to understand how to do my research or understand the research in my field in general. As for the quotation, apart from the "several commentors" part (followed by the footnote to what is fantastically irrelevant given the vast literature on the philosophy of science), it doesn't actually make any distinctions between theories and models. That engineers make a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models" is like saying "engineers make a distinction between math and physics". Fantastic. But scientific models are models of some aspect of reality. Scientific theories explain some aspect of reality. A model doesn't do anything if it doesn't model what it is supposed to, and neither does a theory. There is no strict divide between the two, and most of the things generally called "theory of X" (gravity, big bang, etc.) are known to be wrong, but not in ways most people care about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, definitions are changing, now macroevolution is merely speciation, but defining a species is elusive. When people say that speciation is evidence for macroevolution that is a misunderstanding of the creation model. The species level is below the family level in the taxonomic ranking system and creation usually draws the line at the family level of change.

What is the "model" for creation theory? How can we test it? How can you demonstrate that evolution only occurs below the taxonomic rank of family? What mechanisms prevent evolution above this point?

 

[Man of Faith]

What is the "model" for creation theory? How can we test it? How can you demonstrate that evolution only occurs below the taxonomic rank of family? What mechanisms prevent evolution above this point?

The creation model is the orchard model, vs. the tree model for evolution and neither can be tested or both can be tested, depending on how it is looked at. The same tests that validate the tree model also validate the orchard model. The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen. I don't have to show how it is prevented. Should I have to show why the moon can’t be made of cheese?

 

[McBell]

The creation model is the orchard model, vs. the tree model for evolution and neither can be tested or both can be tested, depending on how it is looked at. The same tests that validate the tree model also validate the orchard model. The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen. I don't have to show how it is prevented. Should I have to show why the moon can’t be made of cheese?

Are you claiming that the moon cannot be made of cheese?
If so, then yes, it is on you to show that the moon cannot be made of cheese.
But in another thread.

In this thread it is your claim that change only happens within or below the family level.
So yes, you have to show how it is prevented.

it is called supporting your claim.
If you cannot support your claim, which is the real reason you tried this dodge, then there is no reason to entertain the claim.

 

[Agnostic75]

The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen.

The vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, disagree with you. Are you implying that you know more about biology, paleontology, and anthropology than they do? Are you qualified to make scientific judgments about those fields of science based upon you own personal knowledge?

Consider the following from Michael Behe:

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small. Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

I suspect that the vast majorty of the relative handful of creationist experts grew up accepting creationism before they went to college. If that is true, then confirmation bias is a reasonable possibility.

Do you believe that the earth is young? Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

 

[Man of Faith]

Are you claiming that the moon cannot be made of cheese?
If so, then yes, it is on you to show that the moon cannot be made of cheese.
But in another thread.

In this thread it is your claim that change only happens within or below the family level.
So yes, you have to show how it is prevented.

it is called supporting your claim.
If you cannot support your claim, which is the real reason you tried this dodge, then there is no reason to entertain the claim.

To be fair, I never claimed that it couldn't happen in this thread, just that it isn't observable and that is enough to question if it did happen.

 

[Agnostic75]

It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

But until the 1800's, the vast majority of Christians accepted creationism, not evolution. Before the 1800's, there was no major funding for evolution, and it was mostly evolutionists who were publically ridiculed, not creationists.

Are you able to understand and critique Ken Miller's article at The Flagellum Unspun about the flagellum? If not, then that would mean that you do not know enough about evolution to make reliable scientific judgments about it, and are merely guessing that a relative handful of creationist experts are right.

Why is it such a big deal for you how God created life on earth?

Do you believe that it is acceptable that some Christians accept creationism based upon the Bible alone, and do not care what scientists say?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The creation model is the orchard model, vs. the tree model for evolution and neither can be tested or both can be tested, depending on how it is looked at.

You mean, if you look at it the wrong way?

Evolution makes repeatable, testable predictions all the time. What tests can be performed to confirm the orchard model?

The same tests that validate the tree model also validate the orchard model.

No, they do not, since all the tests thus far fit perfectly with the tree model, but contradict the orchard model. We do not see all families spring out of the geological column without any previous ancestors - we see all life slowly converge into similar forms.

The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen.

Enough to question, but not enough to refute all the evidence that it did.

I don't have to show how it is prevented.

Yes you do, since you're making the claim that it cannot happen. Since we understand how genetics works, there is no currently known mechanism that prevents it and all the evidence indicates it, so how can you demonstrate otherwise?

To be fair, I never claimed that it couldn't happen in this thread, just that it isn't observable and that is enough to question if it did happen.

The species level is below the family level in the taxonomic ranking system and creation usually draws the line at the family level of change.

So, where's the evidence that makes this claim valid?

 

[Agnostic75]

To be fair, I never claimed that it couldn't happen in this thread, just that it isn't observable and that is enough to question if it did happen.

I will trust a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, over your own personal opinion. I doubt that you know enough about biology, paleontology, and anthropology, to imply that macro evolution is not probably true.

 

[Man of Faith]

Why even the majority of Christian experts disgaree with you?

This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or maybe it is because it is the only serious game in town.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

Prove it.

Hell, take it public. You'd probably win a Nobel prize. What you're suggesting here is a vast conspiracy of millions of scientists backed by... I dunno, millionaire atheist industrialists? Must be pretty easy to find evidence of, right? Do you have any real data to present?

 

[Agnostic75]

The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen.

The vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, disagree with you. Are you implying that you know more about biology, paleontology, and anthropology than they do? Are you qualified to make scientific judgments about those fields of science based upon you own personal knowledge?

Consider the following from Michael Behe:

I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small. Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

I suspect that the vast majorty of the relative handful of creationist experts grew up accepting creationism before they went to college. If that is true, then confirmation bias is a reasonable possibility.

Do you believe that the earth is young? Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

 

[fantome profane]

The creation model is the orchard model, vs. the tree model for evolution and neither can be tested or both can be tested, depending on how it is looked at. The same tests that validate the tree model also validate the orchard model. The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen. I don't have to show how it is prevented. Should I have to show why the moon can’t be made of cheese?

So even by your own description of the creationist model the only thing you have supporting it is what you (falsely) precieve as a lack of evidence for common descent.

Even if you were right (and your not) a lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[Man of Faith]

Or maybe it is because it is the only serious game in town.

I'll take serious to mean atheistic and naturalistic.

 

[fantome profane]

This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

Behe gets his funding from the Discovery Institute. Are you suggesting the Discovery Institute would cut him off if he rejected common descent?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: Consider the following by Ken Miller:

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?

Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.

Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.
Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.