Evolution is not science

Lol! Perhaps it's just a hopeful expression.I've been here for many years, and I've never seen an instance where legitimate, honest debate about the science happened between creationists and evolutionists, except when they were talking about something else.But perhaps it would have been less ambiguous for me to have said "no debate within the sciences." Random mutation creates new traits. That's why I said "natural selection and random mutation." This statement doesn't make any sense to me. Mutation is why there's the potential for variation in the first place. Why not? Mutations can create arbitrary genetic sequences. No, but the evidence did, and I can see the evidence. If the objections leveled at evolution were scientific ones, I would agree. But the scientific debate over evolution ended in Darwin's time.The objections of creationists are religiously motivated, however, and I shouldn't have to tell you how hard it is to oppose religion with fact. The debate rages on among laypeople because evolution contradicts a narrow interpretation of the Bible, not for any fault of its science.You may find my remarks arrogant. I find your presumption of universal rationality among all human beings to be naive.

This forum was originally created to explore the science/lack of science of creationism.I really think the the creationism/evolution debate is an apples/oranges type debate. It is a scientific debate in which one side is barely if at all armed.As such, I'm amazed it happens as well as it does.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

You're not reading my posts clearly. I specifically said that mutations DO create variation. Because the genetic information needed for legs to exist in a legless creature are far far FAR too complicated to appear in a random mutation. That's a moot point as long as they have scientific evidence.Infamous Charles Darwin quote which I'm sure all of you have heard:”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.’”Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.’Dr David M. Rauphttp://www.cft.org.za/articles/evquote.htm”The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA)there are dozens and dozens more on that page

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the general theory of evolution is not observable, testable OR repeatable.

---

Actually, the theory of evolution is observable and testable, and the observations and tests are repeatable, just like any science requires.-

quote:

---

The composition of the Earth, however, can be concluded by the observation of the transmission of waves.

---

Now you're getting it! Even though the core of the earth is not directly observable, we can nonetheless "observe it" by examining its effects on phenomena that can be observed. It is testable in that once someone has a theory on the composition and physical state of the core, one can predict further phenomena that should be observed if the theory is true. And these observations and test are repeatable.In the same way, the history of life on earth can be observed by observing the effects it has left in the present. The theory of common descent (which is what I suspect you are objecting to) can be tested by predicting phenomena which should be observed in present times if the theory were true. And these observations and tests are repeatable.The theory of evolution, the theory of common descent, is observable, testable, and repeatable exactly like the "theory of the iron/nickel core with a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core" is observable, testable, and repeatable.One is science every bit as much as the other.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

like I said, evidence not assertion. you have only provided assertion in defense of your statement that mutations cannot create legs in legless creatures.You're the one making the claim. It is up to you to support it with evidence, not assertion.It's also not nice to quotemine, such as with your Stephen J. Gould quote. FYI, that's an explanation as to his hypothesis about punctuated equilibrium.Darwin answered his problem--the fossil record is incomplete, thanks in large part to the difficulty of fossils to be created.And just what does a pulse radiation scientist have to do with biology? Here's a hint--stick to those who deal with biology (like Gould), but don't misrepresent what they are saying.

Quote mining (the taking of peoples' quotes out of context) is usually a sign that one's argument is pretty weak.-

quote:

---

Infamous Charles Darwin quote which I'm sure all of you have heard:

---

Not much was known about the fossil record in Darwin's time. That is why the bulk of the evidence in favor of evolution is not fossils, and, in my opinion, the best evidence is not the fossils at all. Of course, now in the early years of the 21st century there are a lot of nice fossil evidence of the major evolutionary transitions.-

quote:

---

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

---

I've actually read SJG's works. You should, too, then you would understand what is writing about. In fact, SGJ is noting that there is a lack of fossil evidence for microevolution -- but that is no big deal since creationists already accept microevolution. However, SJG and Niles Elderedge came up with their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium because they noted that there was plenty of fossil evidence for macroevolution.Ironically, it is the part that creationists accept, microevolution, that is missing in the fossil record, but the fossils record macroevolution very nicely.-

quote:

---

Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA)

---

This may be true: there isn't a very good theory yet about the origin of life itself. However, the record is pretty clear about the history of life after it originated.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Many atheists question evolution, despite it being taught in American classrooms, despite it being alluded to as fact over and over. If it IS based on scientific evidence, the debate would have ended. Mutation are copy errors. They cannot produce new traits because the genetic sequence is too complicated. Random mutations cannot produce new traits, meaning which they are not modifications of existing cell functions. such as... That's simply not true, even atheists question evolution.

That's true. But nobody says that legs appeared in a single random mutation.A mutation to the Homeobox (HOX) genes (spefically ones like Ubx) can cause legs to appear on a legged animal. These genes are like 'switches', and so can turn on the leg genes in the wrong spot if mutated. This is the sort of mutation that causes legs to appear instead of wings in chickens and extra toes to appear on humans).However, there is no fundamental reason why a mutation to such a gene couldn't cause a rib or an antenna to grow by accidentally turning on one copy of an antenna gene, and then that gene was mutated in further generations to form a rudimentary limb.Anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you want, you can start another thread on this issue.Edited by Doddy, : I digress

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

a new thread would be necessary for this, as what mutations can do is not directly about evolution being a science.unless the admins think differently, that is.however, just what do you know about genetics and mutation? Because right now, it appears that you know very little.

This statement appears irrational to me.The debate over the validity of astrology has not ended, are you therefore arguing that astronomy is NOT based upon scientific evidence?The debate over the validity of racial superiority (ala Nazism) has not ended, are you therefore arguing that racial equality is NOT based upon scientific evidence?The debate over the validity of the shape of the earth has not ended (google flat-earth society), are you therefore arguing that an oblate spheroid earth is NOT based upon scientific evidence?...... I could go on and on and on.I hope this helps you see the logical falsehood of the above statement.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: and it is less typing than

...

One of them. Prediction and Testing of theory are some others. Your original list was incomplete and you have not alleviated that situation. 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. 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. 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.For instance the University of Berkeley defines evolution this way:

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).

---

And the University of Michigan defines evolution this way:

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. 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. Oh?Tiktaalik. Predicted result based on evolution. see Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for TiktaalikThey 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 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. You can start here (from Coragyps Message 87):
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf 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.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf Another good one.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

CoaH, I'm going to be blunt.Do you think that Biologists area) stupid, and/orb) incompetent, and/orc) conspriring to deceive everyone?

quote:

---

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’

​

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

---

Oh, dear, another misquote.Here it is in it's original context:Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps" Here's something else Gould has said:(bolding added by me)Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money You've been misled by some website that has either intentionally taken Gould's words out of context in order to change what he meant by them, or by a site that is so sloppy that it doesn't care if it gets the quote right or not as long as it makes scientists look silly or wrong.

It has, for scientists. Not everybody is a scientist, though. I don't understand why you think the scientific consensus would end the debate for everybody else. We can't even get everybody to agree that the Earth is spherical. How complicated? Genetic sequences are actually quite simple - it's just 4 different bases in different orders. And the total number of different proteins among known life is actually a very small fraction of all the possible proteins; which tells us that, in fact, it's quite easy to mutate your way from one functional protein to another. (There's a mathematical proof of this but I don't have it.) The fossils. The genetics. The experiments. Specifics can be found in your biology classroom. Atheists often have questions about evolution, but that's just to learn more about it. There's no such thing as an atheist creationist, by definition.