Evolution is a fact, and a theory

[tumbleweed41]

Speaking of observable;

Scientists from VIB, KU Leuven, UGent and Harvard have succeeded in reconstructing DNA and proteins from prehistoric yeast cells. This made it possible to determine how genes developed and evolved into their current form over more than 100 million years.
Kevin Verstrepen (VIB/KU Leuven): “These results provide answers to an argument frequently used by opponents of the theory of evolution: the chance of the occurrence of a new characteristic –a functional new segment of DNA – from scratch is similar to the chance of a modern jumbo jet assembling spontaneously from a few pieces of scrap metal… Many scientists have proposed that the new functional DNA does not appear out of thin air, but is built up gradually from a copy of an existing segment of functional DNA. By reconstructing a piece of prehistoric DNA that was copied several times during evolution, we were able to investigate the changes that occur in each of the copies and which gradually lead to new functions.”

SOURCE

 

[LuisDantas]

Possibly, if the theories described something that wasn't observable and there were competing models.

Then you have no reason to deny evolution, either. Congrats.

 

[McBell]

Possibly, if the theories described something that wasn't observable and there were competing models.

ah, so you feel the same way about creation then, right?
I mean it is not observable and there are competing models....

 

[Leftimies]

Evolution is the best explanation we have currently. I'd put my money on it.

But is it a fact? Can we know with absolute certainty how and in which order species evolved, and within what time frame? And, that we aren't missing any links? I'd say that the lack of time machine as of now renders the fact side of evolution impossible.

I do not consider evolution as absolute fact. I consider it as a theory in which I believe, a model that best explains our origins...but not a fact. Fact is way too absolute by definition.

 

[idea]

My background is in looking at the structures of non-living things - metallurgy, ceramics, etc. Metals don't evolve with time. Their structures are a result of atomic interaction potentials, and those don't change with time - just like gravity and the laws of physics don't change with time. What is alive is different than what is inanimate though - the structures are not merely a function of interaction potentials and atomic bonding - there's something else going on. Instead of saying "the atoms formed a new atomic structure because they reached their melting point" or something, biologists say things like "they adapted to better survive in their environment"... it's not a 100% physical science, but contains elements of thought - the animals thought it was cold so they grew thicker fur, or they thought meat tasted good so they grew sharp teeth... in metallurgy, explanations of atomic structures don't involve trying to understand what the rock was thinking, or what it was trying to do - rocks don't try to do anything... with life, there is thought involved, there is intelligence - it's not a purely physical system. When many people talk about "intelligent design" I think that is all they are saying - that there is thought/mind/conscience/intelligence involved with the changes that happen - which is perfectly reasonable, as there is thought/mind/conscience/intelligence involved in the process.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution is the best explanation we have currently. I'd put my money on it.

But is it a fact? Can we know with absolute certainty how and in which order species evolved, and within what time frame? And, that we aren't missing any links? I'd say that the lack of time machine as of now renders the fact side of evolution impossible.

I do not consider evolution as absolute fact. I consider it as a theory in which I believe, a model that best explains our origins...but not a fact. Fact is way too absolute by definition.

Biological Evolution itself is as much a fact as Atomic Theory and Circuit Theory. The theory part is the combination of verified hypothesis, observable phenomenon and causes and behavior of biological evolution. It is the exact mechanisms of biological evolution that we study, test and verify or discard. But that does not change the fact that biological evolution occurs.
As for "missing links", let's look at this way. if we find Specimen A1, and then we find Specimen A2, and we can tell that A1 in the ancestor of A2, there will be some who will say "Where is the transitional form between them?". Now, years later, we find Specimen A1.5, the transitional form. Where then is the transitional form between A1 and A1.5? Or A1.5 and A2? The "missing link" now becomes A1.25, or A1.75.
The formation of fossils is a rare thing that involves specific conditions to occur. We are very lucky to find what we have found so far. 70 million years of human evolution would require 70 million fossils in perfect condition to satisfy the "missing link" detractors. And that would defy logic when we consider the conditions that must occur for fossilization.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution is the best explanation we have currently. I'd put my money on it.

But is it a fact?

Yes. There is plenty of questions yet to answer (and yet to make) about how exactly it happens, but those are minor details with no power to make the fact of evolution itself questionable.

Can we know with absolute certainty how and in which order species evolved, and within what time frame?

Obviously, you can't always. But by the time of Darwin the evidence was already so overwhelming that Wallace found Evolution independently, prodding Darwin into revealing his findings after a relutance of years.

Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publication of Darwin's theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, that we aren't missing any links?

There are literally millions of different species. If on the one hand that means that we can't very well hope to have complete fossils for every intermediate species for them, on the other it resulted in a very impressive amount of evidence already.

I'd say that the lack of time machine as of now renders the fact side of evolution impossible.

Modern biology has sophisticated tecniques that might surprise you.

I do not consider evolution as absolute fact. I consider it as a theory in which I believe, a model that best explains our origins...but not a fact. Fact is way too absolute by definition.

Technically I agree, but at this point it is no more reasonable to doubt the reality of biological evolution than it is to doubt the reality of the link between electricity and magnetism.

 

[McBell]

the animals thought it was cold so they grew thicker fur, or they thought meat tasted good so they grew sharp teeth...

 

[idea]

Well, that's basically what survival/adaptation is. To survive, there has to be an entity that actually wants to survive - rocks don't want anything.... Things that are alive choose where to live, choose who to mate with (hopefully), choose what to eat, choose where to live - and what we eat/where we live/who we mate with - that controls the physical attributes of who we are - the whole process is governed by choices, by thought, by intelligence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except that, for the most part, it isn't.

Changes are pretty much random. The choices, to the extent that they exist, are made by their odds of survival in the environment that they find themselves in.

Even when choices are involved, e.g. for animals capable of voluntary motion and of favoring one environment over another, mutations aren't intentional.

Unless you are talking about artificial selection by way of choice of mates?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, that's basically what survival/adaptation is. To survive, there has to be an entity that actually wants to survive - rocks don't want anything.... Things that are alive choose where to live, choose who to mate with (hopefully), choose what to eat, choose where to live - and what we eat/where we live/who we mate with - that controls the physical attributes of who we are - the whole process is governed by choices, by thought, by intelligence.

No, it is not. Mutations are random, and only the non-conscious process of natural selection is what ensures that these random mutations add up to effective differences. Nothing "decides" it wants sharper teeth, or stronger legs, or better eyesight. Those are just innate benefits of organisms with specific mutations, and because they offer an evolutionary advantage, they are naturally selected. No organism chooses it's own mutations, nor in most cases do they choose their own habitat or even their own diet. A freshwater fish cannot up and decide that it fancies it's chances living in the red sea. A spider cannot decide that it doesn't fancy eating flies anymore and have a go at eating a buffalo.

 

[Man of Faith]

ah, so you feel the same way about creation then, right?
I mean it is not observable and there are competing models....

I certainly have the freedom to weigh both models equally, unlike mainstream scientists.

 

[LuisDantas]

That sounds unlikely.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I certainly have the freedom to weigh both models equally, unlike mainstream scientists.

The fact that you think you have sufficient objectivity and understanding of science to completely disregard the opinions of millions of qualified scientists speaks for itself, really.

 

[Noaidi]

I certainly have the freedom to weigh both models equally, unlike mainstream scientists.

I know this has been addressed (but generally ignored) in numerous other threads, but let's try it here:
Leave aside evolution and, instead, present the evidence for the competing orchard model. Ignore evolution entirely and only present your evidence for the creationist model.

 

[McBell]

I certainly have the freedom to weigh both models equally, unlike mainstream scientists.

nice dodge.
Care to answer the question?

 

[Agnostic75]

I certainly have the freedom to weigh both models equally, unlike mainstream scientists.

But many Christian theistic evolutionists previously accepted creationism, and later gave it up based upon their scientific research. They more than weighed both models equally since they started out accepting creationism.

How can you weigh models since you are not an expert?

Many Christians, especially in third world countries, cannot read and write. How are they supposed to adequately weigh complicated scientific evidence?

How can any scientist weigh creationism against evolution? Consider the following from Ken Miller:

What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith:

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

What is your opinion of those comments? Morris was an inerrantist, and so are Jones and Yarhouse. All three men are, or were in Morris' case, scientists, but reject anything that science says that contradicts their literalist interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

When the acceptance of naturalism grew and now that the philosophy of naturalism has taken over, there is no room for any alternate view.

But no room for an alternate view is exactly what creationists enjoyed prior to the 1800's. There was not any major funding for evolution, and evolutionists were widely ridiculed. Why did things change anyway?

I find your comment to be quite odd considering the fact the the vast majority of people in the world believe in God(s). Naturalists do not believe in God(s).

If you are referring only to experts, there is always room for alternate views, i.e. peer reviewed articles in leading science journals. However, such articles have to meet certain scientific standards. How are you in a position to judge those standards from an entirely scientific perspective? Why should anyone pay any attention to your personal non-professional opinions?

Surely a large percentage of Christian creationists do not know enough about biology to adequately discredit macro evolution from an entirely scientific perspective.

Women are much more likely to become creationists than men are. How do you account for that?

 

[Man of Faith]

present your evidence for the creationist model.

All scientific data.