How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[bobhikes]

I didn't say that you did. Your claim that we need to know every detail about every change seems to be presented as a way to falsify or dismiss the theory as "just a theory". Just another subjective perspective. That is simply not so.

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way. As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it. I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's up with dogs?

I don't know. You might want to ask a beagle


Actually I am not an expert at all, so the claim that the great variety of dogs would throw off future researchers may not be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way. As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it. I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

No one on the science side has said that they can prove it. At least without using qualifiers. You cannot "prove" any scientific theory or law.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way.

No, I am not.

As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it. I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

I'm not sure what POC means and the evidence is widely and readily available for anyone to find.

From what I have been reading in your posts, it does not sound like you are fine with it. But if that is the case, then OK.

But I'm telling you that we do not need to know every detail about the history of a genetic change to demonstrate the soundness of the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know. You might want to ask a beagle


Actually I am not an expert at all, so the claim that the great variety of dogs would throw off future researchers may not be true.

Human future researchers or a hypothetical intelligent species that developed science? I can't speak knowledgeably on the conjectural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genetic manipulation is a thing currently and will be more so in the future. I did notice that while I have been polite in my discussion when you don't like something you resort to classifying me negatively which is not very scientific.

Okay, I will try to watch that. But you need to watch your own claims. You may not realize it but you really have not been all that polite either.

At any rate genetic manipulation does not "go against" evolution. It takes the lessons of evolution and applies them for a quicker result.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not a creationist but the Theory of evolution will never be more than a theory. The problem is that the theory itself is not provable. Random changes that can not be predicted are sorted out by nature so that only the beneficial survive. There is no way to prove random or unpredictable results. There is no way to determine that they a beneficial until years after the result. So you will always have to use the past to prove the present and it is not duplicatable. Scientific proofs have to be duplicatable, meaning they have to be predictable and not have random features. This is not just for evolution look at all the scientific theories and you will see the same they are not yet duplicatable for various reasons. This does not mean they aren't scientific or true just that they will not be a proof until we can duplicate them.

@Subduction Zone is correct. Proof is not a standard of science.

It has become much less probable, but certainly still possible that some evidence will be discovered that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Actually, we can see the results of mutations and trace those changes back to the mutation. Predicting which mutation happens and what phenotype will result to is not a claim of the theory, but the theory can explain what is observed in such cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction

I know. And he wonders why I reacted the way that I did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. And he wonders why I reacted the way that I did.

Fumble fingers while typing. A random error with a negative impact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Corruption of DNA code is not exclusively environmental

Where on earth did you get that from?

What else corrupts the DNA?

Even cancer research cannot explain why the corruption occurs in all cases. Yes sometimes it is environmental, such as smoking causing lung cancer, however many cancers have no apparent environmental cause...and to make your position even worse...some cancers are from problems in coding from previous generations that are also not shown to be caused by environmental factors.

The interaction of the genes with their environment, even when the specific interaction remains unknown arises from the environment.

Cancer is an example where I think your claim is false

What is your understanding of environment? What do you think environment means in the context of living things?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I mean, it depends on how you delineate who is and isn't a "creationist." In the broader sense of the term, any theist who acknowledges the gods have a role in the making and changing of reality is a creationist. It's not fundamentally incompatible with accepting biological evolution either, but many wouldn't know that given how "creationist" as used in this culture nearly always just means "Biblical creation myth literalist" rather than the broader sense of what creationism is. That's unfortunate, given how many different mythologies there are about change and origins in cultures worldwide and how many folks understand these stories are about relationships, encode ritual practices, and so on rather than being taken literally. Those are the interesting conversations I'd like to see happen, but those will almost certainly never happen in THIS subforum. They might in Interfaith Discussion though.

Ultimately, I am a creationist. Just not one that denies science and claims to know that the Bible is a literal description of how life came to be on the Earth. Or one that tries to get evidence to conform to Genesis or just ignore it failing that.

 

[F1fan]

It is The theory of evolution, that is the scientific term for what it is. You are trying to define it in some other way. As a The theory of evolution is I am fine with it.

Good, then you accept what experts in science report, and reject what non-experts say that denies the reports, yes?

I am not fine with people stating they can prove it as the POC states and then not offering any evidential support only scientific consensus.

You don't seem well-informed about evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are barking up the wrong tree...I don't need to defend my position...I already have physical historical evidence that supports my timeline dating back more than 4500 years. I have DNA, archaeology, writings from ancient cultures, tmes and dates and places and people, I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...

Again, I'm not the one who needs to prove...I've already got all of that in my favour.

The single biggest problem you have is explaining the beginning and proving it from your uniformitarianism guideline.

It is proven that human DNA is de evolving. Our raid drive system fail safe is a mirror type of raid system...and that is because we only have two parents and not 3.

Alternatively, If there was a pure master somewhere that could step in and replace all of the corrupted code from time to time ...ie resetting the cottupted information ...you might get somewhere, however what atheists have without a creator God is DNA copying according to the model of Chinese whispers..oh and extinction of the bad copies!

Wow!

 

[McBell]

Wow!

Not really.
All they have is attacking abiogenesis because they have nothing that is viable against evolution.
So they have to clump the two together in a sad attempt at justifying their beliefs.

Notice also how they make mountains of bold empty claims and then claim they do not have to support a single one of them.
Standard operating procedure.
Lie, then lie some more, then deny that anyone ever replied to the lies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The relationship of the domestic dog and wolves is widely recognized and dogs are considered to have evolved from wolves. At some point in the history of domestication a mutation known as a gene duplication occurred in dogs with the amy2b gene that expresses amylase. Dogs have a variable number of copies and this difference may be due to breed specific genetic drift or regional dietary constraints, but the increase over that found in the wolves has been quantified. Amylase is an enzyme important in starch digestion. Wolves have an amy2b gene. Dogs have many more copies and thus much increased activity. Where the environment of the wolf does not favor any mutation increasing amylase activity, that of the dog does.

The genome of the dog is not revealing a degradation or de-evolution. A claim of de-evolution is often raised by deniers of the theory of evolution, but it is clear from the use that it isn't a concept understood by those deniers and that genomes are undergoing change and not some loss of purity or reverse evolution. There should probably be a separate thread for a de-evolution discussion. Here I will only say that it is not observed that species are returning to ancestral forms or losing bits of their genome with each generation.

What is observed is that there is change in populations over time that is acted on by the environment and those with more favorable genes tend to reproduce with greater success than those with less protection from the environment.

In this case, dogs, having greater amylase activity, are able to meet the challenge of a dietary environment that living along with humans has provided. Wolves don't need that and the environment doesn't select for that increased activity even if the same mutation occurs in a wolf. They are not eating diets higher in starch so there is no benefit for that mutation to persist.

So, we see dogs and their enzyme profile resulting from the expression of a higher copy number of amy2b. A change in the gene frequency and increased information that has been studied and the link established.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329415/pdf/age0045-0716.pdf

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.160449

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148899&type=printable

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/cont...rt00002?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not really.
All they have is attacking abiogenesis because they have nothing that is viable against evolution.
So they have to clump the two together in a sad attempt at justifying their beliefs.

Notice also how they make mountains of bold empty claims and then claim they do not have to support a single one of them.
Standard operating procedure.
Lie, then lie some more, then deny that anyone ever replied to the lies.

I was thinking in terms of seeing this tactic used yet again and for the reasons you mention and at the same time how it has been widely and justly refuted. Wow!

There is a lot of misinformation and fallacy that is rampant in the science denial camp that even a dog cannot digest, but seems to have a life of its own due to the ignorance of the science that is denied on the basis of belief and not on any evidence.

 

[McBell]

I was thinking in terms of seeing this tactic used yet again and for the reasons you mention and at the same time how it has been widely and justly refuted. Wow!

There is a lot of misinformation and fallacy that is rampant in the science denial camp that even a dog cannot digest, but seems to have a life of its own due to the ignorance of the science that is denied on the basis of belief and not on any evidence.

For some, willful ignorance is required to save their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ultimately, I am a creationist. Just not one that denies science and claims to know that the Bible is a literal description of how life came to be on the Earth. Or one that tries to get evidence to conform to Genesis or just ignore it failing that.

You are not a creationist according to the man that coined the term:

creationism | Etymology of creationism by etymonline

"science teaching based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the… See origin and meaning of creationism.

www.etymonline.com

" Creationist (n.) in an "anti-Darwin" sense is attested by 1859 in a letter of Darwin's, and it is said to be used in Darwin's unpublished writings as far back as 1842."

One can accept evolution and still be a Christian. I do believe at that time that Darwin was still a Christian.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is going to be a short thread. I am just curious to see if any of our creationist members can come up with the correct number.

I have extreme doubts.

42.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm going to object, though you and I often agree. I agree with Quintessence. While I would accede to your definition if you said YOUNG EARTH creationist, or Genesis literalist, it is inaccurate for many creationists.

I am a creationist, in the sense that I believe God had a hand in the creation of the universe and all life. There are many Christians who take the view of "God is who, evolution is how." I don't know the details, nor do I feel a need to. But I accept the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang, deep time, and the evolution of life. I think it would be cool if scientists can eventually solve the question of abiogenesis.

The majority of Christians may believe God had a hand in creation but are not science deniers. The YEC are so persistent and vocal that they tend to drown out the more reasoned Christian believers. Please don't lump all believers who think God had a hand in creation in the bucket of the definition quoted above. I don't know that it is the "original" definition; rather, I think it is a usurped definition.

This is my position too as a Theistic Evolutionist, the foundation of harmony of religion and science, and a professional geologist for over 50 years.

Some atheists take an extreme position concerning what is the position of Creationism from the TE perspective.

My perspective of God is from the perspective of what I call Universalism in that the 'Source' some call God(s) is not definable by humans from any one religious perspective especially from the perspective of ancient tribal religions without a knowledge of science.