Professional Soldiers ® - Is evolution proven science or theory

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Is evolution proven science or theory (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42020)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540617)

If there are fossils, then it wouldn't be an assumption, it would proof that it changed over time that way. If you see, via fossils, that a life form changed over time to be a certain way (as fossils are the only real way to know this), then it would have to be because that change benefited the life form in some way or had no negative affect on its ability to survive. In environments where life forms have no competition, they tend to evolve a whole lot of unnecessary anatomical features.

Now we're getting somewhere.

"If a series of fossils exhibited changes, then that would be evidence that the changes were beneficial."
(Paraphrasing, correct me if I'm getting it wrong)

OK. That is your argument.
I don't think anyone would dispute that this would be evidence that the changes were beneficial.

How does this argument support macroevolution?

GC and BS, you two are dorks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540620)

If you have enough fossils, you can see over time how macroevolution would occur, as it would be the accumulation of microevolution over time. This would involve multiple microevolutions over many generations, eventually evolving enough species changes that you'd get to a different genus, and so forth. For example, humans and chimpanzees, two different genera, likely split from a common ancestor about four to five million years ago.

Your statement is logically correct.
It also assumes facts that aren't there.

The fossils to which you refer have not been found.
The faithful continue with the search...

<edit>

In an earlier post I mentioned the idea that there is nothing wrong with assumptions, provided the consequent was falsifiable.
Your statement basically says that if you have evidence which is predicted by evolution, then that evidence is consistent with evolution.

That is not a falsifiable consequent.
It is a tautology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540853)

Would have to disagree there. There are thousands of fossils that have been found to verify macroevolution.

Where is the smooth continuum of fossils showing the link between:
-invertebrates and vertebrates?
-fish and amphibians?
-amphibians and reptiles?
-reptiles and birds?
-among insects?

It isn't there.
There are only artists' renditions and other imaginations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540853)

IMO, I do not know if the consequent as regards evolution is falsifiable.

That was kinda my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540853)

The problem here is if one believes there is a scientific alternative to evolution. I do not personally see the alternative argued (i.e. intelligent design) as being a scientific alternative. If there are scientific alternatives, then sure, finding fossils does not mean evolution is true, but what is the scientific alternative?

If evolution is true, then all of the alternatives are false.
There are no alternatives (alternatives are false), therefore evolution is true.

A implies B.
B, therefore A.

Affirming the consequent.
When evolution gets pinned down, the subject always changes to alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540947)

Entire post.

Theories have to be falsifiable to be science.
Otherwise, they're just faith.

Evolutionists constantly point at the problems with religion.
Guess I'll take a page out of their playbook.

Many people present all sorts of evidence WRT the existence of Noah's Ark.
A great many people support the idea.

I'll assume it exists.
Go ahead and try to disprove that it exists.

If you can't disprove that it exists would it be logical to conclude that it exists?
This is where faith and science part ways.

It's ok to make an assumption that evolution happened.
But, the theory must then go on to predict what evidence will be found and will not be found for it to be scientifically useful.

This is where evolution runs into problems.
Evidence is explained after it is found.

Any child can make up a backstory.
That isn't science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 540960)

Entire post.

We are really going in circles here.
I'll be simple about it.

Where is the smooth continuum of fossil evidence connecting reptiles and birds?

Funny how there doesn't need to be a smooth continuum of one thing but two of something is too many.

A continuum question has been addressed.
People can infer what they wish.

My understanding of evolution would indicate that the number of animal phyla should be few early in the fossil record and expand into more with the passage of time.

What early phyla transitioned into what later phyla?
Can a "root" phylum be found?