And theory(ies), based on observation, and testing of the theory(ies), and refining the theory(ies) as evidence invalidates some concepts and validates others. This is the way science is done. When evolution does this it IS science -- by definition.
For instance the observation that there are variations within every population of every species, and that there are more offspring produced than needed. The theory of natural selection says only those best able to survive and reproduce will do better than those least able to survive and reproduce at the critical job of survival and reproduction. This is tested and validated.
Likewise we can state a theory of evolution that the hereditary characteristics within populations of breeding organisms change over time. This fits observations and tests and has been validated.
We can also use the fossil evidence as a test of this theory: does the fossil evidence show change within species over time?
quote:Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) are the developers of what reportedly is the largest, most complete set of data ever compiled on the evolutionary history of an organism. The two scientists have painstakingly pieced together a virtually unbroken fossil record that shows in stunning detail how a single-celled marine organism has evolved during the past 66 million years. Apparently, it's the only fossil record known to science that has no obvious gaps -- no "missing links."
The study focuses on the microscopic, fossilized remains of an organism belonging to a huge order of marine protozoans called foraminifera. Often heard shortened to "forams," the name comes from the Latin word foramen, or "opening." The organisms can be likened to amoebas wearing shells, perforated to allow strands of protoplasm to bleed through. The shell shapes range from the plain to the bizarre.
... Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.
"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."
Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.
Some biologists have long suspected that the evolutionary process works differently, although within certain principles, among different species. In other words, what may be true for evolution in mammals may not be true in molluscs.
"The forams may not be representative of all organisms, but at least in this group we can actually see evolution happening. We can see transitions from one species to another," Parker said.
In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.
This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present.
There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.
Denial of evidence is not a re-interpretation. Ignoring parts of the evidence is not a re-interpretation. It is easy to make "interpretations" of things you want to believe - you can "interpret" evidence to show the sun orbits a flat earth if you want to - but the TEST of the "interpretations" is whether they explain all the evidence and whether there is evidence that contradicts the "interpretations" that is not dealt with.
For instance: the many layers of forams in their different sedimentary layers can be "interpreted" as being deposited by some mythic flood or other, but this does NOT explain the separation of the different species of foraminifera into specific layers within those sediments and the clear progression from species to species from layer to layer. This separation cannot be accomplished by sorting, as there are different density forams within each layer that span the densities of forams between layers, and the density of forams is different from the density of the sediments, some of which are very slow to settle in water. Thus the "flood interpretation" does not explain all the evidence nor does it explain the contradictory evidence of differential settling rates.
You failed to address the issue of what science is and therefore your post does not even come close to showing your title conclusion.
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
and it is less typing than
...
But, observation is the foundation for science and scientific theories.
One of them. Prediction and Testing of theory are some others. Your original list was incomplete and you have not alleviated that situation.
Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated.
Not by those doing the observations. There are any number of papers where evolution has been observed, and even creationist websites acknowledge this occurs.
Any unsupported assertion to the contrary is just that -- an unsupported assertion. It is also one made that is in denial of the evidence -- though this can come from ignorance of the evidence ... the first time.
Yes, the theory of natural selection is a scientific one. However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
Natural selection alone, no. Natural selection in combination with mutation and a clear result of a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from generation to generation is evidence for the theory of evolution. This too has been observed. Speciation has been observed and even creationist websites acknowledge this.
Biological evolution and the theory of Evolution are quite different things. Biological evolution is the change over time in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time.
The "Theory" of Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species of plants and animals.
Let's include bacteria and fungi and the rest of the species on earth and not limit this to a small minority of them eh?
The theory of biological evolution and the theory of evolution are the same. You do not get to decide how the scientists doing the science define the terms they use. If you use a different definition then you are not talking about the same thing, so whatever you "prove" by your definition has no bearing on what science uses and studies.
quote:Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
quote:We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
* Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
* Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
In either case, evolution occurs within species and the accumulation of those changes of inheritable traits between isoltated daughter populations explains the origin of species, and continued accumulation of changes between non-breeding populations explains their increased divergence after speciation. Thus "the origin of species" -- your definition of the theory of evolution -- is a result of the "change over time in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time" -- your definition of biological evolution.
quote:In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.
That would support Biological evolution and not the general theory of evolution.
Did you read the article or just look up what the creatortionistas tell you?
quote:The pattern is exactly what Arnold and Parker have found in the forams. It is but one of a number of observations that the FSU team has made thus far about what arguably is nature's crowning achievement -- the act of speciation itself.
"We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," Arnold added.
That is the record of the begining of species -- hundreds of them -- which (according to you) is the "theory of evolution"
And seeing as they are all in the order foraminifera this statement is one of stunning unimportance and irrelevance. It does not refute the point that speciation occurred and thus that the "origin of species" was also observed and documented.
Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon. You can't observe, repeat or test the past. You can only speculate.
They looked for rocks that were from the right age and the right environment to have the kind of fossil they were looking for. They made a prediction based on the theory of evolution for what they would find as evidence, and then they found it.
You can test the past, it has been done. This also demonstrates that evolution is science btw: observation, theory, prediction, test, validation, it's all there.
All facts are interpreted. Evidence does not speak for itself. We make basic assumptions to explain the evidence. The question is which model best explains the evidence available.
All you did was repeat what I said, but you haven't offered any different explanation that does fit all the facts the way the theory of evolution does.
Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this?
No, it's about an assertion that has been refuted by the evidence, and the question of where that leaves the poster ... the question of the flood was just an example of an inadequate incomplete alternate explanation of the evidence.
Another inadequate incomplete alternate explanation of the evidence, with a few logical fallacies thrown in for good measure (straw man, argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, etc).
Evolution (the science) is the study of the changes to inheritable traits within populations over time.
Evolution (the theory) is that the changes to inheritable traits within populations over time can explain (a) the diversity of life we see and (b) the fossil record and (c) the genetic relationships between species.
Evolution (the process) is the change to inheritable traits within populations over time.
So far you have not supported your title thesis (to say nothing of proving it in the logical sense), nor have you refuted the evidence that contradicts your thesis and that makes it invalid until you do so.
As noted previously, science is composed of certain elements, all those elements are present in the study of evolution, ergo evolution is science. It's that simple.
One common copy error is making multiple copies of the same substance. It is like the early Xerox machines that every once in awhile seemed to take on a mind of their own and just kept spitting out copies as though it had forgotten how to count.
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
And this is true from the most primitive in time earliest known form of life to all of life as we know it.
Thank you for demonstrating that this concept of "information" is absolutely useless, because it has absolutely no effect on whether evolution occurs or not.
However, mutations simply does not produce new traits ...
Now if you could prove that instead of just assert it you MIGHT have an argument. First you have to define what you mean by "new traits" ... one that you will stick to.
And you still have not shown that evolution lacks the elements of science -- your title thesis -- so either you are equivocating on that claim or are content to let the evidence show that it is science.
And this is true from the most primitive in time earliest known form of life to all of life as we know it.
Thank you for demonstrating that this concept of "information" is absolutely useless, because it has absolutely no effect on whether evolution occurs or not.
Of course genetic information is relevant to the theory of evolution. How else can you explain the difference in genetic information between bacteria and people?
Please try to stick to the topics you introduce. In Message 56 you said:
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
And I just agreed that the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it. And I pointed out that because this "net information" is the same for all life that it does not affect evolution, and because it does not affect evolution it is a useless concept to use in an argument about evolution. It's like saying all life we know is carbon based.
A trait is a characteristic of a population.
Would you say that what that population can consume is a characteristic of that population? Such as antelope consuming grass and lions consuming antelope? Just trying to be precise and making sure that you WILL stick to your definition.
Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion? Where in the genetic code does this barrier exist?
We've already seen that the "net information" in the genetic code from the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is the same as it is for all of life as we know it, so when we look at that level, then all we need to do is reshuffle the code to change the DNA from any one life form to that of any other. It's like origami - the same square of paper can be folded into the shape of an elephant and the shape of a flying crane, but the "net information" of the square of paper is the same. What makes the difference is the arrangement. This is all that mutation does, and all it needs to do to change the DNA from one species into the DNA of another.
We also have evidence where traits are produced by evolution. Once you settle on a workable definition of trait we can proceed in that direction. A good start would be the way it is defined in science, as in this definition from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:
Thus what a species consumes would be a trait of that species.
And you still have not shown that evolution lacks the elements of science -- your title thesis -- so either you are equivocating on that claim or are content to let the evidence show that it is science.
Evolution cannot be observed, tested or repeated. Claims that we can observe evidence for the theory of evolution are completely unfounded.
You know, making another bare assertion like this, just after you have been given evidence that in fact evolution has been observed, has been tested and has been repeated, is really not debate nor any refutation of the information presented. All it shows is that you are in denial of the evidence that contradicts your position. Denial is not faith, nor is it an "alternate" explanation, it is delusion.
The only question is whether it is a temporary state of being deluded or more of a psychological one.
Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
As Nuggin asked, what the heck is 'net information'?
I deduced it logically from the original usage in Message 56:
One common copy error is making multiple copies of the same substance. It is like the early Xerox machines that every once in awhile seemed to take on a mind of their own and just kept spitting out copies as though it had forgotten how to count.
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
The subject was copy errors. Net information (NI) is not affected by copy errors, so this makes it simple:
DNA is composed of 4 basic molecules - adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).
This is not changed by copy errors, so this is part of NI.
The numbers of molecules would be changed by any copy error, so the actual numbers of each molecule is NOT part of NI.
These molecules are arranged in base pairs across the DNA double helix - with A bonding only to T, and C bonding only to G - and as this is not changed by any copy error, this is part of NI.
In sequence along either helix strand of DNA one molecule can bond to any one of the other four possible molecules, and there are only 16 such sequences possible (given direction along the strand so that we are considering any one molecule and then the possible next one):
This limited number of bonding sequences is also not affected by copy errors, so this would be part of NI.
The numbers of such sequences in any strand of DNA would be changed by any copy error, so this is NOT part of NI.
Likewise evaluating the total structure of bonding formations in a DNA molecule would also be affected by any copy error, so that is NOT part of NI.
Thus NI is the information in the DNA of any organism that it is composed of (?#)A, (?#)C, (?#)G, (?#)T, arranged in pair bonds of AT (or TA) and CG (or GC) across the helix, with sequence patterns along each helix strand of (?#)AA, (?#)AT, (?#)AG, (?#)AC, (?#)TA, (?#)TT, (?#)TC, (?#)TG, (?#)CA, (?#)CT, (?#)CC, (?#)CG, (?#)GA, (?#)GT, (?#)GC, (?#)GG bonds. This information remains unchanged by copy errors, while anything else is subject to change by copy errors.
... I just agreed that the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it. And I pointed out that because this "net information" is the same for all life that it does not affect evolution, and because it does not affect evolution it is a useless concept to use in an argument about evolution. It's like saying all life we know is carbon based.
It's mundane information. It's also useless to use in an argument against evolution because the NI for an octopus a giraffe and an archaea bacterium is the same.
This also means that it is the same for organism {A} that has feature {X} but not feature {Y} and for organism {B} that has feature {Y} but not feature {X}, and thus it cannot prevent any mutation that loses feature {X} and gains feature {Y} or that loses feature {Y} and gains feature {X} ... so no matter how you define "information" the concept of NI does not of it's own prevent an increase, a decrease or an exchange in the "level" of information content from occurring. Thus the assertion by City_on_a_Hill in Message 69 that:
Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Is just another totally unsupported creationist assertion with no logical foundation that flies in the face of the evidence that this can, has, and will happen.
Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
Every good scam or con consists of partial truths and plausible lies that rely on the ignorance and gullibility of the audience for acceptance .... and the "information" argument is no different.
Millions of mutations have been carried out on this. Yet, there has not been one useful mutant identified.
Can you tell me which specific experiments were undertaken with the stated goal of making and identifying "useful" mutations and how "useful" was specifically defined within the experiment for later identification (ie for the predicted results) in the labs?
Or are you trying to imply a result that was not a part of any such experiment somehow should have occurred on it's own? The questions in this case are (1) how do you define "useful" in a way that can be measured against all the experimental results and then (2) where are the results of these measurements?
Without this information there is no way to evaluate the validity of your claim. That is, after all, how science is done.
Note that the "millions" of lab studies of "Drosophila Melanogaster (the Fruit fly)" DO show evolution occurred, that it was scientifically measured and documented and that many theoretical predictions were validated (and that some were invalidated). This means that science was done in those lab experiments, on the subject of evolution, and thus that evolution IS science (just to refer specifically to the topic eh?).
It is unfortunate that anyone who is questioning any data, observation or absence of data is labelled as Religious.
You don't need to be labeled "religious" to be identified as logically challenged.
But on the other hand if what you use for your argument is a typical creatortionista misrepresentation of science, then you are open to criticism as being a member of this group.
evolution: "theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits." (From MSN Encarta)
You would do better to use a definition as used by scientists, such as:
quote:The Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
Message 158 (1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.
(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.
(3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.
(4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:
theories on how change is enabled ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
theories on how changes made within each generation are selected ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate) ... etc
Now it may be interesting to flesh out #4 with the lists of theories from natural selection to genetic drift to punk-eek to runaway sexual selection ... etc.
The conclusion was that there is no one overall theory of evolution, but we can arrive at a statement that is a synthesis of numerous tested and validated theories for how evolution happens. This can be stated at different levels of detail as seen above.
In fact, YOU CAN SIMPLIFY the definition of evolution, and end up with something like:
"evolution is the development, through various stages, of one living organism into another living organism not at all like it"
First, lets not confuse the process of evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in species from generation to generation. We also had a whole thread on Definition of Evolution (it branched off from the other one due to confusion between evolution and the theory of evolution).
Second, this is not a theory of evolution because it does not explain how evolution occurs: it is just an observation of the fact of evolution. A scientific theory explains a process.
Third, your definition implies a direction in evolution to create new forms. There is no such direction, no purpose to make new organisms. You are confusing result with process.
So what's the difference between the two definitions? Well, the latter one is simply a definition of evolution by its effects, not how those effects came about. It basically cuts away all the other stuff one might argue about (Such as natural selection) and gets right to the core of the problem, the effects of evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.
But is also not evolution - it is not restricted to hereditary changes - and it is not a definition of the theory of evolution, like the previous one was.
It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection. In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection. Even if one explanation of how the effects of evolution occurred was proven wrong, the effects would still be there. So evolution, by its most simplified definition, would still be standing.
First, scientific theories in all sciences are never proven. They are tested to see if they can be invalidated (proven wrong) but they can never be proven right (the next test may prove them wrong).
Second, you are now confusing the evidence that evolution has in fact occurred with the theory that explains how it occurs. Evidence is fact and not subject to proof or disproof: a rock is a rock. A fossil is a fossil.
No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that.
Look back at the Berkeley definition for the theory of evolution. What is "macroevolution" and how does it occur? Whether creationists have a problem or not is immaterial to what the science of evolution actually says, what the theory of evolution actually is as used in the science of evolution, what the process of evolution actually is -- or the evidence that evolution has occurred.
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything)
Every field study ever made. For an example try:
Grant, P. R. (1986) Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J.).
Grant, B. R. & Grant, P. R. (1989) Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: The Large Cactus Finch of the Galápagos (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago).
In some cases such field studies are better than lab experiments.
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring. In fact if you present this simple proof to creationists you get right to the core of the problem which is: What is science? How does science proceed? Is biology as much a science as physics and chemistry? What kind of logic does science use?
Natural selection being implausible is crap: it has been observed happening in field studies.
If you want to start a topic on what science is then go to Proposed New Topics to post a new topic. Perhaps one on the definition of science: then we can apply it to biology and see that yes indeed biology is a science.
Actually it does. ”Through various stages” (e.g. reproduction).
Your first sentence is a non-sequitur and ”Through various stages” (involving reproduction or not) is still not evolution per se: a butterfly goes through various quite remarkable stages and becomes a very different creature from their original (as do all fetal development and growth of individuals, including becoming sexually able) -- but it is not evolution. A good definition doesn't have these inconsistencies and confusions, and this is why scientists use the definitions they use and not one like yours.
Let's be clear: if we are talking about evolution then we use the definitions used in the science of evolution, but if we use different definitions then we are not talking about evolution scientifically.
Do you really need to use a different definition when the scientific one is available and is the one used in the science of evolution?
And no there is no direction in the definition, it just says that living organisms will develop into other living organisms not at all like them. There is not “intended direction” in this.
Sorry -- that is still direction from one to another: it implies that organisms must change into something else, and this is false.
The Galapagos finches changed beak size and then changed back -- this is evolution (the change in hereditary traits within populations from one generation to the next), and it does not involve becoming a new form or species.
The cyano-bacteria that show up in the fossil record 3.5 billion years ago are virtually the same as cyano-bacteria that live today, and their evolution has not required that they change into some new form to please your definition.
1. I never said they were.
Actually you did, in Message 149, as I had quoted (which is why I made the point):
Malangyar, msg 149 writes:
It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection. In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection.
Or were you just being careless, sloppy, confused and possibly dishonest?
3. No, the evidence doesn’t prove evolution by itself. You need to set up a theory for it to prove evolution.
There you go again.
Eh, what’s your point? I was just stating that I’m talking about macroevolution here.
The point is, what you mean by macroevolution. Most creationists and virtually all YEC get this wrong, so we need to know what you are talking about here.
Notice that your desire to change the definition for the theory of evolution (rather than adopt a scientific one already in use) does not bode well for your interpretation of macroevolution having anything to do with the science of evolution as opposed to, say, your personal set of fantasies. We have a thread on this problem (MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?), so feel free to put in your definition.
It's rather disingenuous of creationists to claim that macroevolution never occurs but then not define what they mean by macroevolution (so the point can rationally be argued on level ground), don't you think?
Thank you. So my understanding is that observations of nature that are in accordance with a specific theory can be interpreted as experiments on the same level as lab experiments.
Yes, and many such are published every year in the scientific journals. This is especially true when the field study is done to test a concept, and most especially true when a field study invalidates a hypothesis. It is the same scientific process whether done in a lab or not.
What I’m trying to argue now is that evolution can in fact be proved even without pulling natural selection into the fray, as Ian Johnston does.
And you are confusing the process of evolution with the theory of evolution again. That evolution occurs is a fact, and this is so because it has been observed and documented. This does not, however, prove the theory of evolution.
Let's try a different tack: evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations from generation to generation; the theory of evolution is that the mechanisms involved in this kind of change are sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see today, in history, and in the fossil record.
See the difference?
Rahvin writes:
N, evolution is a fact. It's observable, just like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the model describing the mechanism by which evolution happens, and that model is what has been tested
There are both facts of evolution and theories of evolution. Rahvin made this point, and you missed it because you are still confusing the process of evolution with the theory of evolution.
Your link actually exactly makes Rahvin's point, that there are both facts of evolution (and gravity) and theories of evolution (and gravity). Theories (scientific ones anyway) are based on facts for the formation of the theory that then explains them and provides predictions to test the validity of the theory.
Natural selection is an explanation of how evolution occurs. You can prove the (Simplified) theory of evolution even without natural selection. I’ve already provided proof of it here: Error
Natural selection is only part of the picture. Another major contributor is genetic mutations, but these alone are not evolution or the theory of evolution.
... I never said, in any post, that I was against evolution, ...
Nor should any creationist, YEC or otherwise, be "against" evolution, as their disagreement is about descent from common ancestors, and the number of common ancestors, rather than the method of descent.
My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct. Especially as Ian Johnston's proof of the occurrence of macroevolution seems to be substantiating (1).
Well, I would say that (1) can exist but that it is a result of evolution not a cause, that it is an observation rather than part of the theory, as the theory explains it.
This goes back to evolution being the change in hereditary traits within populations from generation to generation, from which we can deduce two subpopulations that are isolated diverging over time, becoming genetically different, but having a common ancestor population. With sufficient time these diverging populations become different species, but related by their common ancestry. We can further extend this to apply to any two species -- that at some point in the past they had a common ancestor -- that the logical deduction is that that there was at one time a single population of organisms from which all life has evolved.
To me this is more of a prediction of the theory of evolution than a part of it, and it can be tested with both the fossil record and genetics, tests that have been made and which agree with one another to a remarkable degree, increasingly as more information is added.
My definition was trying to define (1) located in Chiropteras post above. (1) can exist, and be proven on its own even without (2). I'm trying to understand if this is correct.
And yet in my mind (2) is evolution (a good part of it anyway) while (1) is a result of evolution, evidence, and validation of it.
Fair enough, they CAN change into something else.
I would say that sometimes there are opportunities for change, but that change is dependent on both random factors and the forces of selection. In the former they may not provide the change for selection to operate, and in the later, selection may operate against changes being incorporated.
That said I concede that I was wrong in formulating it in that way.
Good.
What I meant to say was, you need to set up a theory for the observations to provide evidence of the occurrence of macroevolution.
Which brings us back to the definition of macroevolution and then lead to the process or mechanisms that result in macroevolution.
That one species can evolve into another.
Speciation occurs when two sub-populations become genetically isolated and no longer interbreed. This too has been observed, although the degree of difference between the two populations is initially pretty small and insignificant.
Consider the ring species, the asian greenish warbler, of which there are 6 subpopulations -- varieties -- 5 of which form a ring around the tibetan plateau with hybrid zones between all but the northernmost two:
quote:In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species.
They overlap in area but do not interbreed, and the difference is a slight change in plummage and a different mating song. They not only do not see the others as potential mates, but do not seen them as competitors.
The degree of change necessary for speciation is small.
Is it not true, that the occurrence of macroevolution is essentially a theory, BUT it has been substantiated by such an amount of observations and experiments (Say, fossils from excavations) that it is now considered a fact by the scientific community?
Again this gets back to the definition of macroevolution. If it is just speciation, then it is a fact because it has been observed. That this can explain the diversity of life as we know it today, in history and in the fossil record, though, is still a theory.
The tree of life based on fossil evidence is a theory of relationships between organisms today and in the past with islands of facts representing known fossils.
The tree of life based on genetic evidence is a theory of relationships between organisms today and in the past with islands of facts representing similar genetic sequences.
That these two theories mostly agree can be taken as substantiation, but not as fact -- there is some (minor) disagreement.
Is it true to say that theories can turn into facts?
It depends on your definitions of facts, laws and theories. I would tend to lean more in the line that theories can become "laws" due to a preponderance of validating evidence and a dearth of anomalies that are not explained. Facts, to me, are things of even greater certainty - tree rings, rock layers, radioactive decay, the speed of light are facts in this regard.
Hmm, I don't think you're all 100% agreeing on the terms...
Scientists don't 100% agree on terms either, but this does not mean there is little agreement.
The thing is RAZD, many people don't consider evolution a fact. And in those cases, it's nice to be able to use a "proof" (Although there is no 100% proof in science) to be able to show them that it is in fact, a fact.
But it is also necessary to be honest and not overstate the position, that what is proven is that many instances of evolution are known, are a fact, but that the whole sequence of events is still theory. Well substantiated and tested theory.
... the occurrence of macroevolution (Macroevolution meaning for example the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates) ...
Now this is more than just speciation (which many creationists don't see as having enough change), and a rather different issue altogether. This raises the question of how you get from speciation to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates. How do higher taxons come to be and what is their significance?
... can be proven on its own without using natural selection, as Ian Johnston does in his Short Proof of Evolution.
What is so important about not using natural selection? Most creationists I've known have no problem with natural selection, as they claim it is part of the process of change within kinds. See Peppered Moths and Natural Selection.
... it went a step deeper, the rejection of science.
Of course it did -- that is the only way to maintain fundamentalist beliefs in face of the vast overwhelming evidence and coherence of science in today's scientific perception of reality. There is so much of science that must be wrong for such beliefs to be credible, that the only conclusion for one wedded to belief is that science is all wrong.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, ...
Really there is only one: that the evidence is telling the truth.
We may have some disagreements about what that truth really is, but those disagreements are testable as long as we assume the evidence is true. It may take a while to understand what the evidence is telling us, as it may take invalidating a number of false starts on the path to truth.
How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
Because they are tentative, falsifiable, testable open to alternate explanations, and are not dogmatic. It may seem strange that the main strength of science is in lightly held theories that can be found to be false and readily cast aside, yet this is very like the limber trees -- like palms -- that stand in the way of terrible storms and weather them while stiff and strong trees -- like oaks -- fail. This is so because each failed theory, each falsified concept brings us closer to the truth, the calm after the storm.
Those assumptions are faith, are they not?
No.
Because it does rest on logic and material evidence. The assumptions of science can be tested and falsified, while the assumptions of faith, typically, are not allowed to be.
I had prepared for a furious defense of evolution from WITHIN SCIENCE, having printed scientific articles and such, but they merely nodded and proceeded to talk philosophy. Lol, they never even mentioned that I had just refuted their claims from our last discussion.
It must be remembered that to the creationist, the fundamentalist, the person for whom belief is of paramount importance, that facts are meaningless.
Facts in no way benefit belief, for belief is founded on an absence of facts, often an ignorance of facts and sometimes even a denial of facts.
They live in a world where facts -- if not reality -- are not important.
What you think is totally irrelevant to what the facts show.
That they may not be representative of all organasms, means something other than the conclusion derived by Parker.
Only if you can show other valid conclusions not just make assertions. In any event this assertion alone does not invalidate the fact that the forams do show evolution, nor that evolution itself is wrong, as there are several mechanisms through which evolution occurs.
More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions];...
False. Taking this position to it's logical conclusion, then your resemblance to your parents is purely coincidental and you could just as likely have come out a giraffe or a gerbil instead of the person you are. This concept would then lead to the logical conclusion that there should be many instances of people giving birth to giraffes and gerbils if it were true. Seeing as there are no records in all the history known of people giving birth to giraffes and gerbils, nor or any individual organisms behaving in an analogous manner, this concept is falsified. This leads to the conclusion that there is a direct relationship between the organism and the parent(s) of the organism that causes these resemblances through hereditary traits rather than pure coincidence.
This is true across the board -- every species known is related by hereditary traits that are passed from generation to generation causing resemblance of organisms to parent(s) and hence to grandparents etc, with such changes as occur generally causing more visible change over more generations.
... that one life form may protrude an extension in a manner which resembles another life form's elsewhere without any direct linkage [both fish and humans have eyes]; ...
False again. Convergent evolution of wings in birds and bats does not falsify evolution because the wings are different. The similarity of fish eyes to human eyes is not surprising given that they each evolved from a common ancestor with eyes - there is a direct linkage. The difference between human eyes and the eyes of bugs or mollusks is due to evolving from a common ancestor that did not have eyes. The patterns of features in organisms is consistent with a nested hierarchy of relationships through common ancestors, and not through arbitrary sprouting of features without any direct linkage
... or that a life form may be graduating only to adapt its own environs, and thus utilises a feature seen elsewhere in another life form [humans copy traits of other life forms to develop cars and planes].
But in no cases are whole features adopted from one species into another across hereditary lines rather than along them. The octopus eye is not suddenly transferred to a mammal organism, nor are the features of an octopus eye incorporated into the eyes of mammals. Humans on the other hand take designed features from one product and incorporate them or aspects of them into other design without going through the process of development all over again. Rear windshield wipers suddenly appear on all models and brands of hatchbacks, vans and SUV's after they were introduced in one model of one brand. Electronics across the board have gone from tubes to circuit boards. All refrigerators, air conditioners and the like, have all changed refrigerant used at the same time.
There is no relationship between design as used by humans and what we see in nature, no borrowing of already developed design into totally unrelated objects.
The above anomolies subsist even when the alledged linkages are definitely in the non-absolute and highly exaggerated and elusive category.
Which you will never define nor substantiate in any way, making your argument one from fantasy, especially as it is made in denial of evidence to the contrary.
Nothing of the sort has in fact occured, nor do we have any 'evidences' whatsoever - even with the retreat to the million years and fossils escapism: when did this prowess cease occuring and why is it not seen today?
It has occurred and it still happens every day in fact, as noted above, in all living species. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.
If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.
As is evolution in every generation in every species.
Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.
And yet, unsurprisingly, the evidence as shown by Parker still shows that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred. Your comment does not change that fact, nor the fact that evolution is still an ongoing process. Denial and hand-waving, calling something "casino science" does not refute the facts nor the conclusions reached from the facts. You need to actually demonstrate that the conclusions are false rather than just make assertions.
The premise that the elevation was not altogether direct and linear upto the present time, or that there were uneven twists and turns how the transit elevations [better, destruction] occured - also does not hinder continueing evidence today of a past millions of years away: these would still be evident - everywhere one looks - without exception - based on the same 'continueing process' premise.
Your continued use of convoluted sentence structure and irrelevant words does not hide the fact that evolution does occur, is occurring and has occurred, that the evidence of evolution over millions of years is in fact there to be observed, for anyone.
Not so - the reverse applies. Creationists have been following another science, which says the 'seed' [an outgrowth from the host parentage] is responsible for all transmissions of a life form, including heriditary and immediate skeletal and characterestics imprints: ignored by evolutionists altogether.
Sorry, you mean another definition of science, one that considers fantasy as fact and one that does not need to define itself nor make theories based on evidence or testable predictions. Your "seed" is just as un-defined and un-demonstrated as was your concept of "speech" -- and it is just as irrelevant until you provide some definition whereby its existence can be tested. Just as you have consistently failed to show that human speech has any qualitative difference from speech - the verbal communication of thoughts and feeling - in other animals, you have failed to show there is any qualitative or even quantitative difference between your "seed" and DNA inherited from parent organism(s) from generation to generation. Without any such differentiation you cannot say there is a difference between your alleged system and the process of evolution as we know exists and operates in all species today.
The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this: That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.
More meaningless babble without definition of "seed" in a way that can be tested and validated. The only purpose of such babble is to appear to say something and hide the denial of reality behind a wall of delusion.
Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.
No evolutionist so asserts, for this is also just another false analogy. Cars do not reproduce to make other cars, while biological organisms do, so they cannot be compared. With no change in design factories will turn out cars of the same model until they run out of material, and with no intentional change in production processes they will all be the same color and have the same options; accidents that occur from time to time will not be passed on to future cars. In biology today, every day, we see the production of every single living organism from parent stock, complete with hereditary traits that can be passed on to future generations and mutations that show changes from the parent stock: with no additional design or manufacturing input necessary, every generation - and every individual - is different from the previous generation.
Message 211 It is also a fact, that evolution is not a fact but a theory, with less facts to support it than any belief system.
It is also a fact that the facts of evolution in fact show for a fact that you don't understand the facts of evolution.
Fact: evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- occurs in every species alive today.
Fact: the fossil and other records of the natural history of life on earth shows change after change with no two individuals being the same. When arranged in time they show a gradual development from ancient life forms to the ones we know today in a pattern that is totally consistent with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and the branching of life forms from common ancestors by speciation.
I fully agree that facts transcend belief, when there is a controversy or discrepency what is believed. The factor of 'truth' rests on facts, not belief: one cannot 'believe' the sun did not rise yesterday or that it won't rise tomorrow.
Nor can one believe that evolution does not occur, nor that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Nor can one believe that there is something in human speech that is qualitatively different from speech in other animals, nor that there is some undefined "seed" that carries something not part of DNA that controls the growth and development of organisms in specific and life in general. This is especially true as all possible sources for "seed" material except hereditary DNA have been invalidated by scientific studies.
™ Version 4.2
