Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IS EVOLUTION A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein's theory of gravity must.
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
Evolution is observable
Evolution is reproduce in controlled experiments
Evolution makes accurate predictions.
Here is a nice simple lab experiment demonstrating evolution.
In that light, where does evolution stand? (By "evolution", I mean "Macroevolution"-apes turning into humans, for example.
Are you asking how humans evolved from apes? Humans are apes. We did not evolve directly from the modern apes we see today but from an ancestor common to hominids.
We are also using molecular evolution to compare DNA, RNA and proteins across generations of species to help fill in the missing pieces. Here is a lot of information if you are interested in learning about molecular evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...%3A11&x=17&y=3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everliving
"Microevolution" refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.) Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced and it cannot make accurate predictions.
Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as "a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory,]" yet lends itself "to deductions that can be experimentally tested."
The reason it is not a Hypothesis but called the Theory of Evolution is due to all the overwhelming evidence we have supporting the Hypothesis.
BTW the Theory of Evolution was established in the 1800's.
"All you had to do was to read the article to see if it stated that." "I'm allowed to quote myself all day if I want."
Sure you can but you tried to pass it off as if you were quoting the article. And you look very silly quoting yourself not sure what purpose that serves? There are proper quoting rules you can easily look up if you need help learning how to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Sure you know they are millions of years old. I guess you never saw the dino's etc. on the columns I think in Cambodia in a temple complex dated just eleven hundred years ago. "Dinosaur and Human Tracks Found Together, Page 3"
If you want to be taken seriously then you need to use verifiable credible sources. Don Patton is one of those earth creationist who will steal cheat and LIE. He is a phony and none of his claims are valid.
"Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.
Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban:
When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent.
Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks".
Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-
The evidence does not lie. It amazes me there are humans on this earth who have no ability to look at data or evidence and make sense of it. Who have no ability to properly research using credible verifiable sources. In this age if information technology there is really no excuse.
IS EVOLUTION A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein's theory of gravity must.
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
Let's look at that again. Evolution is a bone fide theory. I will first demonstrate why evolution is a scientific theory, and why creationism is not. True scientific theory depends on falsifiability, testability, predictive merit, and explanatory power - evolution meets all of these criteria.
I'll deal with each: A. Falsifiability.
Natural selection makes several conditional propositions. Darwin's argument may be summarized as follows:
(1) there is a potential geometric increase in numbers yet
(2) resources are limited; therefore
(3) there is a struggle for existence.
(4) Organisms show phenotypic variation in characters related to this struggle; therefore
(5) there is nonrandom mortality with respect to these characters (natural selection). If
(6) part of this phenotypic variation is heritable, then
(7) evolutionary change occurs as a result of the survivors from
(5) procreate (descent with modification).
B. Testability
This is a testable hypothesis and may be subject to falsification. Specifically 1,2,4, and 6 above are testable, they have been tested repeatedly, and their support lends support to the hypothesis. Falsification of any of these tenets would negate the hypothesis as a whole. For example, finding a population where growth is not limited by resources would certainly indicate this population was not subject to natural selection. If, however, the antecedents in the argument do, as far as experience extends, correspond with reality, evolution must proceed as described.
Creation science makes no such testable conditional propositions.
C. Prediction.
In science, prediction, or inference, is NOT about events that have not yet come to pass - but rather a statement about a given system without prior knowledge of it. Natural selection predicts, for example, that any genetically determined character(s) associated with the more effective transmission of an individual's genetic material would become, on average, more widely represented over time. Again, creation science fails in this regard as a science. We cannot make predictions about how genetic material should be transmitted based on the whims of our Creator. Let me make a more pragmatic example. Widespread use of DDT has lead to resistance to the chemical in over 200 species of arthropods. Natural selection makes 2 predictions: either the lineages in the population will become extinct, or they will evolve a mechanism to avoid the mortal effects of DDT. Physiological resistance will likely evolve, but the exact mechanism is unknown since this is not part of the prediction.
D. Explanation.
The ability of a theory to provide explanations directly affects its usefulness. Indeed, Darwin's original intent in publishing his theory was to explain patterns and processes he observed. For example, evolution presents reasonable explanations of why our blood tends to be slightly salty, or why there are numerous morphological, physiological and genetic similarities between terrestrial bovines and aquatic cetaceans.
There are several things that, if they occurred, could not be explained by natural selection and would falsify the theory. If, for example, we found a character that led to the long term lowering of reproductive success of a genetic lineage relative to other lineages. Again, creation science completely fails in this regard, unless someone can prove that they know the reason why God created one thing one way, and not another. Creation science can not explain the similarities between cows and whales any more than it can explain the differences.
Therefore, natural selection is good, credible science. and regrettably, creation science fails in every regard. Natural selection makes specific, falsifiable arguments, it makes predictions and it has enormous explanatory power.
Quote:
In that light, where does evolution stand? (By "evolution", I mean "Macroevolution"-apes turning into humans, for example. "Microevolution" refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.)
As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by, e.g., Wells (about none) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", suggested to be about a family in conventional classification) versus Behe (full common descent). It also allows any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution.
In biological usage, macroevolution tends to refer to the idea that different processes are involved at the species-level and higher than the ordinary, everyday population-level evolution. Thus, someone who thinks that standard population-level evolution over 3.5-4 billion years is enough to account for all organisms might say they reject macroevolution, whereas someone like Gould would argue that there are some different things that play a role at higher levels. However, both would reject the micro/macro difference as it appears in antievolutionary claims.
Although the most prominent young earth groups seem to accept evolution of species and genera, this is rejected by a number of ID advocates who persist in claiming that no species can arise from another species.
Even examples of change within a species, such as the peppered moth, are frequently attacked by antievolutionary advocates, so the claim to accept "microevolution" is not entirely credible.
Quote:
Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced and it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as "a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory,]" yet lends itself "to deductions that can be experimentally tested."
One of the ways that evidence of evolution is readily revealed is through its predictive powers. The more a Scientific Theory is exploited and understood, claims about what should be observed in the real world become more and more specific. Claims become bolder, pretty much sticking its proverbial neck on the line. The Theory of Evolution is one such Scientific Theory. In fact we know more about evolution that we do about gravity. We are still trying to find out what gravity actually is. Anyway, one of the big claims in the Theory of Evolution is Common Descent or common ancestry. If common ancestry is true, then we should be able to predict very specific observations that will eventually be found. That’s the predictive power of Scientific Theories.
In September of 2005 the genetic code of the chimpanzee was published, therefore, we can compare our genome with theirs.
What do we find? One striking observation that was found is actually predicted by evolution and not predicted by creationism. This is by the way, one way to test for common descent. Evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the great apes; the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. If that’s true, there should be genetic similarities.
Well, in fact there are. But there is something that is really interesting and has the potential, if not observed, to contradict evolution’s claim of common ancestry. And that is, we have 2 fewer chromosomes than the other great apes. We have 46, they all have 48. That’s very interesting. Now what does that actually mean? First of all, of the 46 chromosomes that we have, we got 23 from Mom and 23 from Dad, so we have 23 pairs. The other great apes have 24 pairs from each parent. So everyone posting in this thread, including you is missing a pair of chromosomes. So where did they go. Could it have gotten lost in our lineage? No, if a whole primate chromosome got lost, that would have been lethal. So that leaves only two possibilities.
If we really share a common ancestor, which the ToE contends, that ancestor had either 48 chromosomes or 46. Now, if it had 48 chromosomes, 24 pair, which is probably true, after all, 3 out of 4 of the great apes have 48 chromosomes, what must have happened is that one pair of chromosomes must have gotten fused. So, we should be able to look at our genome and discover that one of our chromosomes resulted from the fusion of 2 chromosomes. We should be able to look around at our genome for it. And you know what? If we don’t find it, then evolution is wrong and we don’t share a common ancestor. This is one of those test for common ancestry. After examining all 46 chromosomes and failing to find it would be a great test for creationism. So how would we find it?
Biologists know that chromosomes have these nifty little markers. They have markers called centromeres, which are DNA sequences that are used to separate them during mitoses. And we have cool little DNA sequences on the ends called telomeres to protect the chromosomes from degradation. What would happen if a pair of chromosomes got fused? Well, what would happen is that the fusion would put telomeres where they don’t belong – in the center of the chromosome, and the resulting fused chromosome should actually have two centromeres. One of them might become inactivated, but nonetheless, it should still be there. So we can scan our genome and you know, if we don’t find that chromosome in our genome, evolution is in trouble. Well, guess what, we found it, it’s chromosome No.2. Our chromosome No. 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes. This chromosome is unique to our lineage, emerged as a result of a head to head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located at base number 114,455,823 to 114,455,838. That’s within 15 bases, along with multiple sub-telomere duplications, the telomeres that don’t belong, and lo and behold, the centromere that is inactivated corresponds to chimp chromosome No. 13. It’s there, it’s testable, it confirms this prediction of evolution. How would Intelligent Design-ist explain it? Only one way. He would shrug his shoulders and say, “that’s the way the Designer made it.” No rhyme or reason. Presumably there is a designer who designed human chromosome #2, to make it look “as if” it was formed by the fusion from a primate ancestor. Do you believe in a deceptive designer? Do you believe in one that would try to fool us? This is authentic and tangible. All the IDists can do is shrug their shoulders and say, “that’s the way the Designer made it.”
"All you had to do was to read the article to see if it stated that." "I'm allowed to quote myself all day if I want."
Sure you know they are millions of years old. I guess you never saw the dino's etc. on the columns I think in Cambodia in a temple complex dated just eleven hundred years ago. "Dinosaur and Human Tracks Found Together, Page 3"
LoL
If you say so.
Sure, uh huh.
You can't have an honest conversation with a dishonest person.
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- Microevolution "is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift." As I stated I am not discussing Microevolution. By "evolution," I mean "Macroevolution". My focus is on change that occurs at or above the level of species.
WHAT SOME SAY.
Life arose spontaneously from non-living matter.
WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER.
Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before. Yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell.
Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. Evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. Additionally, the protein molecule must fold into specific three-dimensional shape for it to be useful. Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. "Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins," writes physicist Paul Davies, "it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone."
CONCLUSION.
After decades of research in virtually all branches of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting life.
Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before. Yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is.
Simple not true. We know without a shadow of a doubt how to define life.
Are you wanting to switch the topic to how life originated? Or stick with Evolution?
All the IDists can do is shrug their shoulders and say, “that’s the way the Designer made it.”
Your entire overlong post is nothing but a cut and paste.
Any reader can simply paste "114,455,823 to 114,455,838" into a search engine
and see that this oft-repeated phraseology is from Dr. Ken Miller.
There are, however, detractors !
-There is only one reverse telomeric sequence (CCCTAA) within 1200 base pairs of that location
-There should be a total of 402 telomeric sequences
-Only forward telomeric sequences (TTAGGG) on one side
-And only reverse telomeric sequences on the other side
-A true telomere has anywhere from 5000 to 15000 unbroken telomeric repeats
-The selection range should only show 1-4% of the total telomere
-This is not the predicted location of fusion.
-Purported location is BP 114,455,823-114,455,838
-Predicated location is BP 114,360,509-114,360,510
-A difference of 95,313 BP
-Analyzed BP 114,454,623-114,457,040 (~1200 BP on either side of the purported fusion site)
-ICR (Institute for Creation Research) analyzed BP 114,360,258-114,361,055 (798 BP around predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward telomeric sequences and 43 reverse (53 total)
-There should be 133 telomeric sequences total
-Analyzed BP 114,359,309-114,361,710 (~1200 BP other side of the predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward-telomeric sequences and 44 reverse (54 total)
-There should be 400 telomeric sequences total
-Why is the purported location so far from the predicted location?
-The predicted location looks more like a fusion took place there than the purported location
-The purported location looks nothing like a fusion
-The only possible conclusion is that the paper lied about what was in that location
-This is only a small portion of the evidence
He sums up with this conclusion:
- All of the evidence for the fusion was cherry picked. (There is a reference in the video for further evidence)
-There is no actual evidence for a fusion
-Evolution is flat out wrong
-Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry Science 101 - Creation vs Evolution - Evolution Fairytale Forum
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- Microevolution "is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift." As I stated I am not discussing Microevolution. By "evolution," I mean "Macroevolution". My focus is on change that occurs at or above the level of species.
So a speciation event would be Macroevolution in your mind. I need a score card to keep y'all straight.
Your entire overlong post is nothing but a cut and paste.
Not exactly. I have posted on these same exact topics for so long that these were a combination of three of my previous separate posts. I didn't see a reason to type it all in again.
Quote:
Any reader can simply paste "114,455,823 to 114,455,838" into a search engine
and see that this oft-repeated phraseology is from Dr. Ken Miller.
You mean detractors as in apologetics ministries? Really? Well knock me over with a feather, I am sooo shocked. So then it is safe to say that you fall into the camp that God just happened to create it so that it looked just like the fusion occurred. Shrugging your shoulders, eh? You find that tenable? Why would God create it to make it look like evolution happened? That sounds pretty deceitful. The creationists answer to these finding is just to say:
Quote:
"-There is no actual evidence for a fusion, evolution is flat out wrong and Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry"
Well where were you during the Dover trial? Behe sure could have used you because when he was presented with these findings he did not know how to respond. And he was at the top of the ID game and he was just plain flummoxed. When you could have been there to say that is just how God did it or just wave your arms and say "nuh uh!"
WHAT SOME SAY. The first living organism gradually developed into a variety of living things, including humans, through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER. Some cells are more complex than others. According to one reference, how simpler cells could develop into more complex cells is "often rated the second major evolutionary mystery, after the origin of life."
Scientists have discovered within each cell intricate molecular machines composed of protein molecules that cooperate to perform complex tasks. These tasks include transporting and converting nutrients into energy, repairing parts of the cell, and conveying messages throughout the cell. Could you or anyone here account for the assembling and functioning of such sophisticated components? Many will find your attempt difficult to accept.
Animals and humans develop from a single fertilized egg. inside the embryo, cells multiply and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell "knows" what to become and where it should move within the organism.
Scientists now realize that for one king of animal to develop into another kind of animal would require that changes take place within the cell, at the molecular level. Since scientists cannot demonstrate how evolution can produce even the "simplest" cell, is it plausible that anyone here can? Is it plausible that random mutations and natural selection be responsible for the different kinds of animals on the planet, because you say so? regarding the structure of animals, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, says that while research "has revealed unexpected, stunning complexity, no progress at all has been made in understanding how that complexity could evolve by unintelligent processes."
Human beings are conscious and self-aware, have the ability to think and reason, and possess moral qualities such as generosity, self-sacrifice, and a sense of right and wrong. Random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the existence of these unique qualities of the human mind.
CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life developed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
