Is evolution proven science or theory

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

How does it make Darwinism false? It shows that wholly different species can evolve over a period of generations of changes in the life form. Also, the definition of "species" is a bit arbitrary: LINK

Ive seen that 'study' they made very simple yeast into complex yeast....yeast is yeast, again...micro evolving...same DNA replicated. It proves nothing about Darwinism.....nada, it is asking you to take a leap of faith in the theory.

"An ape wouldn't develop into what we call a human, it would evolve over gradual steps over long periods of time. Different species of fruit fly exist in the wild and have been created in labs. Changing to a different species doesn't mean something big like a fruit fly turning into a honeybee. "

Different sub species of fruit flies exist....not seperate species. Your other comment escapes me. Darwinism says we developed from Apes, you say that wouldn't happen yet support that theory.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

How does it make Darwinism false? It shows that wholly different species can evolve over a period of generations of changes in the life form. Also, the definition of "species" is a bit arbitrary: LINK

when we artificially create a major mutation...crossing cows with buffalo...the offspring cannot reproduce...iotw, lets's say a 'natural' mutation of major hox DNA happened...the result would not reproduce...the mutation would die out, that is the barrier DNA has within it's own code.
Darwinism says apes became men at some point...that would require a modification of hox dna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene) that would entail huge major modification and additions to DNA...as in the mating of beef/buffalo...this mutation process does not work as it produces non reproductive issue...ergo...the mutation dies without reproducing.
So, you tell me, with the barrier code and the protective DNA wall, how did apes become men?

If you choose to believe this theory works, without any proof whatsoever, have at it. Nothing you've put forth is considered quantifiable scientifically.
I'd suggest looking into the genome process a bit more as it really explains the dif between micro/macro mutation.
Also be a bit more specific with species, sub species as you use the term loosely.
I can get a dog to walk upright, however, the hox gene that dictates the angle of pelvic girdle, femur length and articulation are very specific to mammals that are designed to walk upright and those that can periodically do so but predominately are quadrupeds....i.e. when really moving they go to all 4's.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I don't know if that comparison works. One can't just try to mix a cow and a buffalo. They are separate species. And yes, huge changes would have been involved for human's ancestors to evolve into modern human, but that would have been gradual changes built up over a long time, not a sudden huge change.

Take a look at bonobos and chimpanzees. They are separate species, yet look almost identical. They came from the same common ancestor, but then the Congo river formed and split them up, and thus what we know of a modern chimpanzees developed on one side and the bonobos on the other. It is the same as with the fruit flies. You take one group, evolve them over enough generations, and then compare the ones after enough generations to the original ones and find it's a new species of fruit fly. The ancestor that evolved into humans (which they believe humans, bonobos, and chimps all share a common ancestor) would have taken multiple iterations before arriving at its current form.

Brd Sd...I used a cow and buffalo because that 'experiment' was tried...it was called Beefalo....as in Mules...the offspring of a male donkey and female horse...very close DNA, close enough to get an offspring...but all of the offspring are not capable of reproducing....that is the DNA barrier code. IOTW when there is a major mutation, one that would have to happen in Darwinism, the barrier code does not allow reproduction. Please think about that a bit.
BTW, in your example the 'same common ancestor' is unknown, postulation....I am not going to comment upon postulation.

There is not one example of a new species developing from another. Not one.
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...ian-evolution/
a news article no less....

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PRB

Richard,

To argue that Darwinism is a false theory in no way says another is fact. Why is that the case?

I wasn't arguing either way. It has been a long while since I read "On The Origin of Species", but IIRC Darwin's hypothesis holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations and that natural selection {over time} determines which forms will survive.

To my way of thinking and the scope of the argument in relation to the timeline of Earth's history, 150 years certainly doesn't seem to be much 'time' to 'observe' and declare the exactitude or inaccuracy of his evolutionary theories.

MOO.

Richard

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Richard

I wasn't arguing either way. It has been a long while since I read "On The Origin of Species", but IIRC Darwin's hypothesis holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations and that natural selection {over time} determines which forms will survive.

To my way of thinking and the scope of the argument in relation to the timeline of Earth's history, 150 years certainly doesn't seem to be much 'time' to 'observe' and declare the exactitude or inaccuracy of his evolutionary theories.

MOO.

Richard

I am arguing based upon the DNA science we know today that makes his basic premise moot, observable science, not theory...Darwin was totally unaware of the DNA composite and its protective devices.
For his theory to work the construct of DNA would have to be different, decidedly different.
Darwinists have been trying to prove otherwise for years now, to no avail.

from evolution today

"What about the claim in Chang's article that "the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA?" The "continuum of life" through descent with modification from a common ancestor is Darwin's core hypothesis. He sought to support it with evidence from comparative anatomy, fossils, and embryos; but all three of these categories provide as much evidence against the hypothesis as for it. With the advent of genome sequencing, Darwinists hoped to find more reliable support.

This hope has not been realized, though you'd never know it from reading Darwinian propaganda. It takes a review of the scientific literature to learn that even Darwinian biologists no longer think that humans and bacteria are descended from a single ancestral cell. There are just too many inconsistencies in the molecular data.

Even among the major groups of animals, the evidence from genome sequencing has failed to produce a consistent "tree of life." Different results are produced by comparing different molecules, or even by submitting the same molecule to different laboratories. The April 28, 2005 issue of Nature reported that DNA sequence data have failed even to establish whether insects are more closely related to us than they are to roundworms."

To say Darwin knew nothing of genetics would be false...he knew what any good animal breeder knew, you could pass on or strengthen certain traits by reintroducing that trait over and again...basic animal husbandry.
He postulated that basic genetic understanding into a 'tree of life' and grouping dif species as related by basic 'look'...that that same strong trait reintroduced in one species demonstrated an 'evolving' and he extrapolated that we all evolved in that manner not only within the species but crossing species lines.
That does not work in the real DNA world...that is the problem with Darwinism...1850's science applied in the face of what we know today....yet it is still sold as 'science'.....it is actually scientific urban legend.

[Richard]

My point about 'propositional knowledge' and I'm outta the debate:

"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know."

- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld

IMO - such reasoning can be as ably applied to Darwin as to our situation today.

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just because we don't have a set of fossils of it doesn't mean it did not exist.

That falls under the category of "assumption".

Nothing wrong with assumptions, even big ones.
They are necessary for any theory.

However, when assumptions are repeatedly used to plug holes where evidence is lacking (or contradictory), confidence in the theory decreases.
Parsimony and Occam's Razor are useful tools.

Where do the assumptions of evolution end and the testable/falsifiable conclusions and predictions begin?
These need to be clearly delineated if the theory is to be considered science.

[Sacamuelas]

Lol

I love it when Richard is in good form.

[ender18d]

After spending a lot of time on neck anatomy lately, I can tell you that anyone who designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve sure wasn't looking at efficiency!

(especially in giraffes... worth looking up in the context of this discussion)

[bluebb]

Nerds

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Richard

My point about 'propositional knowledge' and I'm outta the debate:

"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know."

- SecDef Donald Rumsfeld

IMO - such reasoning can be as ably applied to Darwin as to our situation today.

Richard

Yup, you have to take Darwinism on Faith alone....I'll agree with you there.

[PRB]

this fruit fly...

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.

or another fruit fly

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Problem here though is that Occam's Razor can be claimed by either side in the debate.

"Either side of the debate."

This is a big part of the problem with the origins debate.
Each theory (or variant) needs to stand or fall on its own.

Let each one have its own assumptions, explanations, conclusions, and predictions.
Measure those against logic and known evidence.

Unobserved, unrepeatable events cannot be proven nor disproven.
We can only increase or decrease confidence in theories and explanations.

Different theories use different assumptions.
One theory cannot work in terms of another theory.

It always devolves into denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, and straw-man arguments.

[PRB]

It is an interesting experiment but not hailed as what the author claims in all sectors. What I cannot find is how the author induced DNA change, what his method was other than a natural procreation...are you aware of that? I'd be interested.


"One of the arguments that evolution is a fact is that we observe it in the laboratory. Evolutionists monitor, for instance, the adaptations of fast-reproducing unicellular organisms such as bacteria. But these species are far simpler than the multicellular eukaryotes. Now new experiments are studying the more advanced fruit fly. The results are telling.

New results published last week report on an experiment that monitored more than 600 generations of the fruit fly. In this laboratory experiment fly populations were selected for accelerated development. But new genes did not arise and take control in these populations as evolutionary theory predicts. The results suggest problems for evolution in the wild:


Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.

In other words, evolution must work differently than expected. "

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

A few things to keep in mind about evolution are:

1) Evolutionary theory itself does not purport to explain how what we call "life" began from non-living chemicals. That is a separate field known as abiogenesis.

2) There are different theories within evolution. The general idea is just that you have gradual changes that occur in life forms over time, with the ones that work best for survival retained because those particular life forms with those changes are more able to survive and reproduce, and pass on those same changes to their off-spring. Over enough time, organisms become distinct enough through these changes that they are separate species.

3) Criticisms within the scientific community regarding certain aspects of evolutionary theory are not attacks on evolution as a construct itself. The same happens in other sciences, such as astronomy---there are multiple models of Big Bang theory for example.

Give me an example of the over time evolution in the abstract...as in an ape becoming a homo sapien....