Is evolution proven science or theory

[Sdiver]

Kinda like a fungus ....

[Richard]

I'm currently rereading Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes - damn that Haristas.

And so it goes...

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

And after enough periods of gradual change, you can end up with something that looks totally different.

What I meant by "immediately" is: the change must be beneficial at that point in time for it to be naturally selected.
A random change can't plan on how it might be beneficial hundreds of generations later (that would be ID, not evolution).

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

That's assuming that the leg/wing was needed for the creature to survive.

I confess.
I assumed that survival was quite necessary.

Are you suggesting that random variation over successive generations produces half-leg/half-wing creatures that are somehow more fit that full-legged or full-winged creatures?
(See SnT's link under "special pleadings")

Where is the fossil record of all of these intermediate forms?

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sure, but if said change is beneficial and continues to be beneficial for generation after generation, and develops more and more over generations, then you can see a large development of it over a long period of time.



Your example though is one of a massive evolutionary change very quickly, which doesn't happen. My point is that certain changes in life forms can occur where the change unto itself is not necessary for the creature's survival, but just something that can aid it better in surviving, and thus be passed on and over-time develop. For a half-leg-half-wing variation to develop would mean that the creature is capable of surviving that way plenty fine.

But a leg would not just start to turn into a wing where it becomes half-and-half via one variation. Such a change would take many generations. Thus for the leg to continue changing to a wing would mean that the creature is fully capable of surviving with this gradual adaption and that the change was continuing because the more the leg became a wing, the more beneficial it was to the creature for survival.

There is no fossil record of successive creatures going from a leg to a wing.
They have legs, or wings; not something going from one to the next.

Still not sure how any of the stages in between would render the creature more fit.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I'm not arguing that there is, was just using that for the sake of example, as that is the example you gave. I do not myself see how going from a leg to a wing could be beneficial. My point was that IF something like that happened, then it would mean that there was some kind of benefit to the life form.

Natural selection: If a change has benefit, then it will be kept.
A implies B.

"If something like that happened" (was kept).
"Then it would mean it had benefit."

B, therefore A.
This is just affirming the consequent.

<edit>
This is a common way of slipping in an assumption (something like that happened - B) and hiding it within an accepted implication (natural selection - A implies B).
At its root, it's just begging the question.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Not sure what you are getting at here. The discussion here is over natural selection. If a change is beneficial, it will be kept. If fossils show a life form changed over time in a certain way, then it would mean that the change was somehow beneficial.

You just did it again.
"If a life form changed over time in a certain way"

This is an assumption.
Assuming it is true doesn't make it true.

There is nothing wrong with having arguments which assume evolution (so long as the consequent is potentially falsifiable).
In this case the argument pretends to be equivalent with natural selection, but it is not.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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?

[sinjefe]

GC and BS, you two are dorks.

[alelks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=260

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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

That was kinda my point.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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?

[MR2]

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

[GratefulCitizen]

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?