The phrase "Evolution is a fact"

You may see transitional salamanders and variety -you may even see what could be termed new species -but let's face it, they are all still clearly salamanders. How do we know that, given enough time, they will be anything other than types of salamanders?Bacteria, given more than enough generations of laboratory testing and mutating, are never anything but bacteria -how do we know that they can ever be anything other than bacteria? Same for fruitflies- only more fruitflies are ever produced. Fossils can't count because we don't know that any one kind of organism changed into any of the others - we can only imagine that it is possible based on our philisophical preconceptions about what may have happened historically.
Fact (variation within a kind) vs fiction (changing of one kind of creature into another.)

Hi Rrhain, No it doesn’t -it shows masses of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world. What you make of it, is a matter of interpretation that accords with your philosophical preconceptions. Did it happen? Do you know it did? (Were you there? Was anybody there?) Or did it happen because it must have and you are personally sure that it must be possible based on your belief system. How about evidentially? Is it scientifically provable that the morphological mutations of the extent seen in the fossil record are even possible? How do you know that? Is this macro-evolution trick real or is it extrapolation based on imagination? Are you sure? Even Darwin knew that wasn’t true but he thought that with time, some convincing transitionals might be found.It worried him and he said:
“why do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” He said that this problem ”pressed hardly’ on his theory.Then there’s Stephen Jay Gould who said that the history of most fossil species includes two features most inconsistent with gradualism -
1. Stasis -they appear looking pretty much the same as when they disappear with morphological change being limited and directionless
2. Sudden appearance - everything appears all at once and ”fully formed.’So you see Darwinist evolution pretty much always happens in such a manner as to escape detection. If you find the handful of so-called ”intermediates’ convincing then you have more faith than I do. At some point we need more than ingenious excuses to fill the gaps. As Phillip Johnson put it in his book ”Darwin on Trial’ -the discontinuities between the major groups are not only pervasive, but in many cases immense. Well you can certainly imagine that that happened but is it true? What about evidence to show that it is possible? All mutations ever seem to be able to do (demonstrably) is cause a defect in or a loss of information. You know, like typing errors. Can we? Even now we have varieties of horses of different sizes. Sticking an hydracotherium at the beginning of the line up is based on a belief that it must have happened, not on proof that it is possible. That would be nice but I’d be prepared to accept some positive examples of information building in organisms that goes beyond such things as antibiotic resistance and bacteria being able to adapt to a nylon diet. Well, even evolutionists have limits as to how far their imaginations can stretch. That is a good thing.

I'd like to attach an article about what is possible given vast generations of bacterial reproduction and testing but I know not how -care to fill me in and I will direct you to it. No I'm saying that there is no experimental evidence to back the contention that prokaryotes changed into eukaryotes at all. I'm trying to say that I don't have the faith of an evolutionist and that I'd like more proof and less assumptions based on a philisophical belief system that all evolutionists appear to have in common. Of course this creation story of modern atheism is all pervasive in the system so I'm not surprised that you believe it -unfortunately I am somewhat harder to convince.

Hi CFO Well I don't know if you could call it scientifically justifiable any which way - an immensely improbable story based on interpretations and imaginations minus any direct evidence yes.
You sure do seem to pop up and get booted out regularly for your unpopular but somewhat amusing contributions, Ray. I can never quite work out the offence.

But the diversity appears fully formed in too short a time for so many morphological mutations to have occurred -even given millions of years were that true.From so long a period of single celled organisms to extraordinary complexity and variation of forms in so short a relative period in the Cambrian. To fill the gaps in with transitional forms is a philisophical choice not a fact clearly arrived at by the evidence. No one doubts that there has been change over time -just the limits of the possible changes and the time required to effect such changes were it possible at all. The evidence that it is even possible is missing.Study of mutations has failed to show any increase in information with mutations. On the contrary, mutations produce increasing disorder and a loss of information. The train is going in the wrong direction and that is according to the information that we do have from experimental investigation of mutational changes over time. 'Evolution' is unfortunately a very slippery term that can be used to describe the most innocuous changes and once you agree that evolution has happened, the big supposed changes get thrown in on top. OFF TOPIC MATERIAL HIDDEN.
Edited by AdminNosy, : topic

Sorry Fosdick - bacteria can change and adapt to environmental pressure -nobody doubts that. The question is, given enough time and the correct selective pressures, can they change into something like a human being or even into anything but a bacteria? You see it seems they have a genetic code that programs them to be a bacteria and allows for adaptation for survival but not conversion into something fundamentally different that would not be called a bacteria. I think bacteria have had enough generations in the labs to change into at least something different that would not so obviously be called a bacteria but sadly they have failed leaving evolution in a quandry that evolutionists appear to ignore while they contrive all sorts of excuses for why something substantial can't seem to happen. Aaah -intelligent design no less! I wonder how those scientists feel about the possibility that DNA could have fallen together by chance and chemical law. Random mutation could not be a factor in starting life because you have to have the self reproducing cell before NS can start to work.The reality of the problem becomes far starker the closer you get.

Frankly Percy, I think it can only be decided upon once the proper definitions are given. Are you talking about macro or micro evolution? Does the one extrapolate into the other or is that just assumed? Without proof that the one can extrapolate into the other, I think it's a deception. Agree to the micro sector and the macro unproven suppositions get thrown in on top.[Evolutionist to unwary citizen]"So you agree that there is change over time? Uhh yes, there is... - Well there you go -(ding) -you have just admitted that it is possible for microbes to turn into men -too late!!! Evolution is true, it's a fact!"There has to be a clear division and specification about what is meant by evolution -if it is not specified, it cannot be said to be true or false.

Taz I have no problem with agreeing with observable fact, in fact I'm advocating it - but one must be careful not to obfuscate the issue through definitions that throw in the unobservable, unproven assumptions along with the scientifically verifiable facts. Unfortunately, the abovementioned additives do tend to be thrown in, as though they were proven, when evolution is discussed.

A change in allele frequencies over time is too broad a classification considering that it implies unprovable assumptions as a natural extrapolation of evidential science, so I'd have to say no I don't agree in that case.
Ihe implication behind Darwinism is that all organisms originated from a common ancestor over millions of years. That is, mutations, gene duplication mistakes, and natural selection not only lead to changes in allele frequencies, but also caused mice to become men or microbes to become scientists given enough time.
There is no reason to doubt that the observable process of natural selection does occur (as does speciation); however, observing speciation is not the same as postulating that mutations and natural selection could result in the microbes to men scenario.
Evidentially, natural selection can only act upon the genetic information that already exists.
What are often referred to as the “mechanics of evolution” blur the line between what we can repeatedly test and see (e.g., natural selection, reactivation of dormant traits and characteristics) and what is supposition about past events (e.g., the origin of whales). Have you observed a dog population become anything but more dogs? That's because they only have dog alleles.
Anything more would be pure conjecture and certainly not based on observable,repeatable science.So perhaps it is you beating your head against an observable fact of nature. You are calling that logic?? So I must just take your word for it against all the experimental evidence that shows clear limitations. Even after many thousands of generations of bacterial genetic research that produces nothing but variations of bacteria, I must have faith and believe that more generations and more time will prove what you have already assumed?

Not as such. Given observable experimental limitations, perhaps, but not in the unlimited sense. That would require a faith I do not possess.

Not a fact; an interpratation of the fact that there are many bones lying dead and fossilized in the earth. Fact only within the limits of our experimental results, not to be confused with microbes to man evolution which is an unwarranted extrapolation of the facts.

However innocuous the definition might sound, the implication behind Darwinism is that all organisms originated from a common ancestor over millions of years. That is, mutations, gene duplication mistakes, and natural selection not only lead to changes in allele frequencies, but also caused bacteria to turn into men with time.
So we move from fact to supposition or fiction depending on whether it is true or not.
So evolution is perhaps more aptly described as a limited change in allele frequencies over time. A cake mix changes over time in the oven - so while we admit change, we know that it has limits as it's ingredients only allow it to change into a cake.
Dog genes have instructions to make dogs with varying allele frequencies; the same for human genes and for everything else.

Sorry Syamsu, I'm not sure I get your point.
Perhaps you mean how do you get variation if the ingredients only allow for a cake? If so then lets extend the metaphor and say that we have a number of ingredients to make a number of different cakes and we randomly choose which cake we want and put those ingredients together. We'll still end up with a cake but differences depend on what ingredients we chose.
So with humans, we'll only ever get a human but he may have blue eyes and dark hair rather than green eyes and blond hair.
Ingredients for certain combinations may not be available and some ingredients may override others (Mendelian genetics) but the result will only ever be human.

Hi fallacycop, Well not really that few. How many human generations are supposed to have occurred to take humans from apes or from australopithicines? Bacteria have been followed through 40000 generations + by Lenski at Michigan State U. The E.Coli he's studied are still very much E.Coli
It's all very well to assume that it'll take longer to get significant change but it is still an assumption taken by faith that macroevolution has happened. Well the build up of human mutations in the human genome is an indication of which way evolution is actually heading.
Are you suggesting that we should say that something we can't see definately did happen until we find evidence against it. Why shouldn't we wait before making statements of so-called 'fact' until we at least have some evidence to support it.
All mutational experiments and selective breeding ever achieves is a loss of information. Never anything new. We need lots of 'new' in order for 'evolution' to be feasible so why can't anybody show us some of this new information? Why is it that all we ever see is a loss or distortion of information. And in light of those facts why do we assume that 'evolution' has happened in contradiction to what we know to be true based on experimentation?It's getting beyond a joke to blame it on 'time' constraints that we can't ever see anything to support our theory but we still need to insist on it being a fact in light of our lack of evidence for that 'fact'.

Hi Fosdick, Yes that's exactly what I want! They don't actually have to make it happen -but they do have to at least demonstrate to me that the train is going in the right direction. If I see a train heading to Perth from Sydney, it is at least conceivable that it may get there given that it is heading in the right direction BUT if it is not heading that way or if it is in fact heading for the ocean, then I must hold up on my theories on where it's headed until I get some evidence to back my contention that it may be heading for Perth.The same with mutations and variation within different kinds of animals - I don't see something positive happening. Even super-resistant bacterial populations are actually superwimps when you put them out in the real world. They only thrive in hospitals because the others have been killed off. You're far better off leaving the hospital if you want to get rid of your superinfection because the mutated weaklings can't compete against the original parent populations in the outside world.Poodles are mutant genetic weaklings with big problems. They have nothing new added to them in the breeding process -information they already possessed got selected by humans who wanted this or that and with it they got all sorts of inbreeding problems, a build up of mutations, nothing new and original, nothing improved. The fossil record is no good until such time as it can be demonstrated that all this supposed change could have happened. Otherwise all we have is a bunch of dead things in sedimentary rock layers and we already know for sure (historically demonstrated) that thousands of sedimentary layers can be made in a day despite what evolutionists would have us believe about vast time being necessary. Rock forms very fast under the right conditions and fossils can be formed extremely rapidly under the correct temperature and pressure conditions. They know that. So why in the absence of some hard evidence should we believe that the macro type of evolution has happened at all?
As for spotty, spotty would be one thing but the fossil record is more than just spotty -it has large gaping chasms -if you'll excuse my mixed metaphor :rolleyes Well my faith that there is a God is far superior to man's inventiveness and better supported by the real experimental science.
You see the God I trust has said that He made the world perfect but that the world rejected His authority and decided to go it alone. Since man is so capable of so much evil (you must surely have noticed) this God took away his sustaining power and the world is cursed to decay in time. Now that may sound flaky to you but that's what we see in our mutational loads, everything is running down, not up as evolutionists would have us believe. They are living in a world of fantasy completely at odds with reality and since the Bible said that man would do that and that very few would believe in Him and follow Him and that everything would get more and more rotten and evil until the day came that we'd be forced to get a mark on our right hand or forehead or else have no money.So much history, so many amazing predictions coming true in our time -all in one book that coincides so much better with reality.
Of course you could go for the alien angle since everything is clearly designed not randomly assembled but even that would only move the original creator one step further away.As for your soul, well I haven't seen mine either but my ability to think and be logical sure makes me think I am more than a randomly arranged hydrocarbon conglomeration. The material part of me is like the computer without the information component. I have a DNA based programme running for sure with the occasional glitch but the information carried is weightless and can be transferred like photos on a hard drive or on hard copy or on a cd. It's something else that is not a material component of us human beings. That sort of explanation is far more intellectually satisfying to me than to explain my thoughts and feelings in terms of random firing neurons -how would I be able to trust in anything I think if that was all it was?
Your Uncle Howard may have been slime but you have some moral compass that we all possess that tells you that -otherwise you'd just have to forgive Uncle Howard on the basis of his mutational glitches and random misfiring neuronal impulses. I'm sure you know that Uncle Howard always had a choice.