Evolution

Gonna start something here hopefully :-) What do you think about this statement:


Evolution is Wrong.

I think this is in the wrong forum.

I think evolution is an excuse for scientist who dont believe in the bible.

An excuse for scientist who don't believe in the bible. Theres an ignorant statement. Evolution is a proven fact among other species. Its real. Scientists just haven't found our missing link.

Why is it real? Why is it not?

Moved.

evolution - check out muller's experiment. He took a batch of flies and used x-rays on them, they became mutated and such. Then he made em breed with normal flies, what came out are mutated flies, which means evolution is possible. read this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

and learn about evolution

I believe in the word of god, and going along with the bible, I believe that our world is only about 7000 or so years old.

There is no missing link, there will never be one, and we will see the end of the world pretty soon.

Im not saying Evolution isnt possible. Im sure some animals have evolves some what, but to say Humans came from a form of ape like creatures to me pretty dumb.

Its a little strange that a chimp and I almost have the same exact DNA, about 99%. Who knows, maybe we did evolve or maybe a God just dropped man onto this planet. Only the future will solve this question as in your end of the world or scientists gaining more knowledge.

Just thought I would throw a little something out there...

Evolution is based on Macroevolution, not microevolution which is said to exist by all (example: different sizes or shapes within a species)

Therefore mutations are obviously required in order for evolution to occur, and in fact, they would have to be good ones.

Dr HJ Miller won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations said: "All is entirely in line with the accident nature of mutation that extensize tests have agreed in showing that vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing...Good ones are so rare we can consider them all Bad"

Putting aside either good or bad mutations, lets just look at mutations in general. The probablity of getting five mutations (Good or Bad) in the same cell has been calculated to approximately 1 in 10 to the 22nd power. That is 1 with 22 zeros after it. If we had a population of 100 million organisms with a reproductive cycle of one day (not nine months, like ahuman) the event that five mutations would be expected to occur onces in every 274 Billion Years. That is only 5 mutations, not the millions required for evolution.


Just thought I would throw that out...
More info to come in the future

I had a tape that a preacher made one time talking about all the scientific evidence towards the creation and that the world is only 7000 years old. Theres a lot. A whole lot.


One question, if the world was billions of years old and normal humam beings have been around for more than 10,000 years according to evolution, why isnt our population bigger than it is?

the reason may be because when humanity was first starting out the survival rate was low.

still, 10000 years ago, it should be higher then the present number today.

But if you say that it came from 2 people, multiplied, a flood about 5000 years ago wiped out the entire population but 8, they reproduced, it can easily account for the present number. Also that can account to how the dinasours died out. Why we have fossil fuels. Why we find shark and fish skelatons in the middle of Ohio. so on and so forth.

Anyway, the earth is a helluva older than 7000 years old. Think about it, when man was first making his own in the world there was no technolgy, no medicine, no doctors, no fast food, nothing. Man had to hunt and gather if he wanted to eat. Early man did not produce his own food, meaning herding cattle and farming. Way back then survival of the fittest was the motto. But there could be soo many factors about why our current population is so small or big that its not even worth debating about since neither of us are experts in Western Civ.

Read this article on evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

In regards to your DNA comment:

DNA is one of the most informations rich carriers known to man.

1 teaspoon of it is capable of carrying all the information in all the computers in the world with enough room left over for all the books in the library of congress.

the ATCG code of DNA is a four level code with 3 compare/corrent codes. It is capable of carrying an enormous amount of information forward without actually loosing the information. In comparison with computer code; it is 10 to the power of 16 times better than the very best computer compare/correct code today.

DNA is made up of protein, which is made up of amino acids. The average protein is a chain of 500 amino acids, DNA being longer. Keep that in mind.

The total number of nano seconds (one billionth of a second) in 20 billion years is one in 10 to the power of 26. The probability of a random combintaion of a 40 chain amino acid (not 500!) is 10 to the power of 141!! If a recombination occured every NONSECOND (not possible) it would take 108 Billion years.

The probability for 1 specific gene actually working in DNA within a 10 billion year time frame is one in 10 to the 90th power. The probabily of 100 specific genes in 10 billion years is one in 10 to the 3000th power.

The probability of a random recombination of a cell that has been completely diassembled has been calculated at one in 10 to the power of 10 billion

A man named Dr. Coppedge "applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"


Some probability statistics

Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.

In regards to your DNA comment:

DNA is one of the most informations rich carriers known to man.

1 teaspoon of it is capable of carrying all the information in all the computers in the world with enough room left over for all the books in the library of congress.

the ATCG code of DNA is a four level code with 3 compare/corrent codes. It is capable of carrying an enormous amount of information forward without actually loosing the information. In comparison with computer code; it is 10 to the power of 16 times better than the very best computer compare/correct code today.

DNA is made up of protein, which is made up of amino acids. The average protein is a chain of 500 amino acids, DNA being longer. Keep that in mind.

The total number of nano seconds (one billionth of a second) in 20 billion years is one in 10 to the power of 26. The probability of a random combintaion of a 40 chain amino acid (not 500!) is 10 to the power of 141!! If a recombination occured every NONSECOND (not possible) it would take 108 Billion years.

The probability for 1 specific gene actually working in DNA within a 10 billion year time frame is one in 10 to the 90th power. The probabily of 100 specific genes in 10 billion years is one in 10 to the 3000th power.

The probability of a random recombination of a cell that has been completely diassembled has been calculated at one in 10 to the power of 10 billion

A man named Dr. Coppedge "applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"


Some probability statistics

soooo...ahhh... care to summerize this article cause I'm sure confused by it.

Im sure some animals have evolves some what, but to say Humans came from a form of ape like creatures to me pretty dumb.


To say that humans were magicly created automaticly from some "thing" (god) to me is pretty dumb.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.



And a quick note on what you said about muting files....

In order for evolution to be accurate, mutations must be good because if they are not beneficial "survival of the fitest" comes into play.

What good is a mutation if it does not advance the organism to a high level??

Surely the mutated fles had no advantage over any of the others. As a matter of fact, they are still flies, which can be reflected as the same species. Evolution within a species is called Microevolution, which is usually not a dispute when it comes to what we call "evolution".

This brings to question why do we not see different stages of evolution all around us? How can it be that everyone is evolving at the exact same rate, regardless of age. We do see microevolution however.

To summarize??

The probablity is ridiculously high that cells came from no where and dna was formed from nothing.

To counter this statement,
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.

I give you this;

3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .



Sorry but the earth is old, not young. If the earth was so young why have scientists found rocks to 3.8 to 3.9 billions years old?


The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

To counter this statement,

The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

I give you this;

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.


There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988) .


Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.


Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Ive heard that carbon dating isnt that reliable.

Ive heard that carbon dating isnt that reliable.


I don't care what you hear. If you think you heard something then back it up like bighauns and myself are trying to do. Give us something to sink our teeth in. Provide articles, links, and/or noteable sources. But give us something! Not a "well thats not what I heard".

Well i heard that in a science class a long time ago.

If i have time soon, I will watch these tapes i have and tell you the evidence that i have.

But i believe in god, and if you believe in god you believe in creationism, which is said to have taken place about 7000 years or so ago, plus or minus about 1000.

This is a religion, and all that a religion is is really just a beliefe of faith in that that religion is true. Which i do. After being told that i should have been killed on impact or at least be paraylized from the neck down, and have brain damage from a wreck that all i got was a broken femur and nose. I think some one was with me that night.

ASSUMING you are correct on the magnetic and moon dust theory...It does not explain the suns shrinking diameter and the spin rate of the earth. As for radiometric and carbon dating...

It has been proven that is had been very inaccurate.

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

Hey i believe in God to but I will not blindly follow what people say, especially when their facts are distorted.

As well, you have failed to counter the DNA evidence, probibility evidence, or mutations.

As well, you have failed to counter the DNA evidence, probibility evidence, or mutations.


Am I on the clock here? Do I have to find counter statements in a given time in order for them to be valid? Look, this is not my line of expertise. I'm learning as I am going and as of right now I am doing research. Hold your horses, I will find counter arguements for every one of yours in due time. Even if this takes me a week. Slow down.

So while you wait, cause it will be a while, read up on what PBS is saying about this topic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

sorry, i just thought that you were skipping over them, as you addressed the last ones first. I was just reminding. I dont want this to turn into a big fight, i would rather a more professional conversation. Not sure if i will have a chance to read PBS, but let me know what you find out

Read the PBS page.

I can go anywhere and read about how evolution is right or not. I have been force fed it in school, I know what is going on. You let me know what you find and why you think it is right. I am letting you know what I know and what I believe. If there is something out of the ordinary on the PBS page, let me know. But I have to run, I will be back on sometime tomorrow. Have a good night

Yeah, I'm reading it right now. Its a lot of info but I'm getting the feeling its not biased. I actually began at the end of series where it discusses religion and evolution. Its a good read, so when you do get a minute I suggest you start there first.

Links to sources, please?

Ooooh I want in on this. Ok so I've heard both sides of the argument now and actually learned alot, but I'm still sticking with my theory that God uses science to do his miracles. I believe God created man by evolving apes. I think that since God created our universe and our physics that he uses them to do his work in a scientific way. I don't think theres any magic going on. i don't take the bible literarily so I don't think man just appeared and Eve was created out of his rib, it seems like a metaphor for one being created from another or man evolving from apes. Haha maybe this is a cop-out saying that both theories are true, but I'm sticking to it. :icon16:

I apologize in advance for what I know is going to be a long post...

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils.




So, since we do not have an transistional periods of evolution, where did we come from??

lol We dunno where we came from. Only time will give that answer but back to evolution. Bighauns, I've yet to counter those arguements but I'll get to it. For now I'll post a very simple example of rapid evolution. The Mosquito.

"In the first of many cases to come, a powerful insecticide spurs the evolution of insects resistant to its onslaught. DDT is widely used in the early 1940s, primarily to battle the mosquito that spreads malaria. Just as the Darwinian theory would predict, those insects with traits that allow them to survive increase in numbers. Soon, DDT-resistance in insects is widespread. The same type of phenomenon soon will be seen with antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

Evolution Revolution (DDT): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/index.html

I am not debating microevolution at all. That is what that is. It is the same as humans deveolping resistance to the flu virus every year, that is why there is a new shot every year. Microevolution is different than that of Macroevolution, which is what the evolutionists speak of in regards to "evolution".

I am not debating microevolution at all. That is what that is. It is the same as humans deveolping resistance to the flu virus every year, that is why there is a new shot every year. Microevolution is different than that of Macroevolution, which is what the evolutionists speak of in regards to "evolution".
*ahem*

source: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm
Microevolution & Macroevolution
Is there any substantial difference between the two? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm)

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution" and "macroevolution", two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population - changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species' coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution - one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don't use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don't pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons - this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error - creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter - and listen to the silence.

We see microevolution around us all the time. But why do we not see the different stages "ape>human" evolution. Microevolution is variation in the shapes, sizes, colours or something like that. For example, we see rabbits change colour in the winter, that is not a sign that they are advancing to a future type of life form. Microevolution is not the evolution that we talk about when evolutionists speak of evolution.

...there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

...

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.What biological or logical barriers prevent the former (micro) from becoming the latter (macro)?

they are entirely different!! The things that make the macro the big differentiating factor are different than the microevolution.

Example: Macro-> Different characteristics between humans and lizards

Micro-> Difference between two colours of hair, like a rabbit changing colors from season to season.

I fail to see how one can lead to another.

Please let me know if i am misunderstanding your point.

We don't actually see macroevolution because it occurs over very long periods of time. Pick up any primatology/anthropology book and you will see enormous amounts of evidence for a common ancestor between chimps and humans dating back to about 6 million years ago. I could fill this entire page with evidence for macroevolution. It isn't that far of a stretch to say that micvoevolutionary forces, when extended over a very long period of time, cause cladogenesis and anagenesis.

That basically would cause this thread to start over as I could again list the pages of evidence so far saying that there is evidence against it. So really, we are not further as a result of that post. There is evidence in this thread demonstrating that there is no transisitonal link between "chimps" and humans. As well (not sure if it is in this thread or another recent one) I have listed evidence demonstrating that the world is no that old, and...actually just read it if you want to know :-)

I simply fail to understand why a "color changing" microevolutionary characteristic and cause a change as big as going from a lizard to a human. Does that not seem a little far stretched, simply illogical to me. As I said, transistional link is missing...

I thought I would post this article that I read...

The best place to start with any discussion is by understanding the exact issue that's being discussed. Misunderstandings about the Christian position of evolution are commonplace.

First off, when objecting to the idea of Darwinism, we are only discussing a specific type of evolution - macroevolution. This means that we're talking about life starting spontaneously and from a single organism came every type of living thing we see today - including germs, bugs, animals, fish, and all of the plants too. Not moths changing colors or some such thing. Having different colors or sizes within a species are micro-evolutionary changes and they are not in dispute.

More specifically, though, we must remember that Darwinian theory the way its proponents currently assert it is a RANDOM AND PURPOSELESS process. That means we must leave out ideas of "theistic evolution" - God causing evolutionary changes to take place. None of the advocates of Darwinism as it is now taught in schools holds to ANY type of creator/designer having any hand in the evolutionary process. I cannot stress this enough. In discussing evolution verses Intelligent Design theory, we must discuss each of those theories the way that their proponents position them. This means evolution is a cosmic accident and nothing more.

Secondly, we must understand that Darwinism is not an empirical science, but a historical theory based on interpreted evidence. Many people get caught speechless when someone objects, "How can you doubt evolution to be true? Don't you know that science has proven it to be true?" Well, science has not proven evolution to be true. The origin of life is not testable and repeatable like the refraction of light or a chemical reaction. It is primarily a search to find out what happened in a specific point in time in history.

Much like a forensic investigator who examines clues at a crime scene and tries to put together the events, we are trying to find out what happened for a single occurrence at a specific point in history that is not reproducible. Therefore, we approach the problem by looking at what we CAN examine and make educated guesses as to which processes are the most likely to bring about all of those outcomes. Evolution is simply one idea of what could have happened given all the evidence we have. The question then becomes "is evolution the best explanation of the evidence we have?"

In reviewing all the evidence we have currently on evolution, I feel that its explanatory power falls short for the origin of life and great variation of species that have existed throughout time. Some of the problems evolution faces are its inability to demonstrate how living organisms began at all, how the components of the living cell are irreducibly complex and how the design evident in those organisms argues for a designer. As we look at each of these dilemmas, we can see how evolution fails as an explanatory model.

In studying the basic question that evolution attempts to answer, "where did life come from", we see that there is no sustainable model for chemicals coming together and creating a living cell. As geologists uncover the true atmosphere of a primitive earth, molecular biologists find that generating amino acids - which produce the proteins needed in all cells for life - becomes incredibly difficult. Further, many scientists see signs that oxygen would have been present in the early atmosphere which would destroy any biological chain reaction creating life. In fact, there is no agreed upon model in the scientific community on how cells did come to be. Scientists who hold to one theory easily point to obvious flaws in a competing model and visa-versa.

Another refutation of the evolutionary model that has recently arisen is the idea that cells themselves are comprised of processes that are what as known as "irreducibly complex". In other words, the entire system must exist all at once for it to be of any benefit at all. Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box explains this in greater detail. He uses a mousetrap as an example. In order for a mousetrap to be of any benefit, it must have some type of base, a spring, a holding wire, a trigger and the hammer that strikes the mouse. Without any one of these components, the trap is completely useless. In the same way, a cell cannot evolve gradually, because all the components that allow a cell to do work must exist simultaneously. Evolving one part but not another is not only useless, but according to evolutionary theory, would put a transitional form at a disadvantage and therefore less likely to survive.

Lastly, the incredible design and purpose shown in the living cell and in the structures that make up living organisms have never been adequately explained by evolution. DNA is a prime example of this. DNA is a digital code made up of only four amino acids. As a digital code it provides a blueprint so that all the various mechanisms and forms of life are replicated according to its instruction. The question arises then how could something like DNA to be created randomly? There is no such thing as a self-generating code - for a code is an agreed upon representation of what it's trying to communicate. That's why they're used in espionage; they don't mean anything taken at face value. It is only when someone or something who understands the code based on rules which were prearranged will the true message of the code be known.

Similarly, the idea that several thousands of mutations that happened in the proper sequence are responsible for the flying birds or the eye of a man are, when examined objectively, pure fable. We never see this type of successive mutation in reality. Even the fossil record shows environmental systems such as the Cambrian explosion appearing abruptly and completely. Also, the odds for such a delicate balance of all variables required for life to exist is so infinitesimal (see our latest newsletter for more on this idea) that holding it happened by accident becomes absurd.

So, if all these things are evident, some may ask, why do smart people like scientists keep saying evolution is true and scientifically proven? Well, when you get them to talk seriously about evolution, they say something different. Professor Richard Lewontin wrote in The New York Review "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." This honest admission shows that these scientists view their theories as dogma. They are taken on faith alone, and not on objective scrutiny.

Hey guys, I've already posted my idea of god creating man through an evolution process but no one here seems to care about that hehe. anyways i got a couple of questions for the Creationism guys. Are you against the evolution theory because of the bible and what it says about how old the earth is? If thats the case then you must take the bible quite literary. Thats fine, but i got a couple of questions. If you believe that God created man and that adam and eve were the first people and populated this earth then the flood came and only noah and his family was left and they took on the task of populating the earth, then how is it possible that there are so many species of animals on this planet? I mean theres no way noah could have built a big enough boat to hold millions of animals and keep them all fed. Not trying to put down anyones beliefs here. Just looking for answers.

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.

Food requirements
The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.

Excretory requirements
It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

I caught this post a bit late, but thought i should put in my two cents. I believe that evolution took place. I think that anyone who doesn't consider evolution a practical answer to how humans became what they are, ignorant. The Bible is a good answer for some people, but then one only sees a subjective view of the world. To be sure of our origins, people need to look at the whole picture. I DON'T believe the Adam and Eve story in the Bible as true and i don't think it was intended to be taken as a truth. I think that it was a myth passed down that would try to explain where people originated. People can't just spring up out of the ground.
In my science class in 7th grade, my teacher showed an experiment where a couple of gases and compounds found in early Earth combined with electricity as a catalyst, namely lightning, to form organic compounds that would, if you believe in evolution, inevitably form the first single-celled organisms. From that day on, i believed whole-heartedly in the theory of evolution.
Also, since i have been little, i have watched the discovery channel, and on that channel, there are shows that chronologically link different species to each other and show how evolution could have taken place. The Earth is estimated to be 6 Billion or so years old, and to me, that is enough time to do a lot of evolving. If you think the Earth is only 7000 years old then let me ask you one thing.... have you ever seen a dinosaur fossil? The Jurassic Period, when most of the dinosaurs that people are familiar with roamed the Earth, lasted from 206 million years ago until 144 million years ago. Carbon dating would also be a good way to prove that there are organisms that were alive over 7000 years ago. You should read into this topic more before you go and write an ignorant comment like that. I know you may have heard it from a preacher, but what Ph.d does he have? And even in the odd event that he does know more than he lets on, is he going to discredit the Bible? Think about this and post back.

Did you know that in a few places on earth Dinosaur tracks and human tracks actually do go together, where there are actually human tracks that are crossed with Dinosaur tracks?

And like some of the info given earlier about the ago of the earth and stuff. Theres soo many things that keep our earth from being 6,000,000,000 years old. I say this, like said earlier stuff doing witht eh burning out of the sun, the slowing down of earth, mood drifting away, dust on earth and the moon.

I believe the bible, i believe that god put us on Earth. One reason i believe this is because this is what ive been raised believing. I did go through a long time of doubt about god and everything, but even then i still thought that the idea of evolution and the big bang are not possible. And after being told by a highly trained doctor, and firefighters and wrecking my truck at a place where dozens of people have died before me. I should have been killed on impact or paralyzed from the neck down and sever brain damage. All i had was a broken femur and nose. I wrecked my truck doing 80mph into some trees.

Now back on topic, theres several times in the bible that "large lizzards" are mentioned and i can look through it and find it if some one is gonna get pissed off cuz im not showing my sources. Also like i said earlier. if you follow creationism everything can be accounted for. Why the dinosaurs disapeered, why we have fish fossiles and stuff like that in the midwest of the USA, ect...

There are different theorys about how the flood started. a meteor could have hit earth sending the water into the air and it raining down for the 40 days and 40 nights like mentioned in the bible. Volcanos could have erupted causing it to rain. Which is also mentioned to be how the earth got all the water if you go by the way of saying earth is 349123-0423=-4 years old. And though it rained for just over a month. It took a LONG time for the water to subside.

ANd like the guy posted up above, there was MORE than enough room in the ark for the animals and such.

Now to say that believeing in Creationism is ignorant is an ignortant statement. I got respect for peoples opinions, whether they have the same as mine or totally different.

Schister...
Check out elsewhere in this thread where i talk about how inaccurate carbon dating is. It has also been calculated that magma from a 20 year old volcanic eruption was dated at 200 million years old. Carbon dating is one of the most inaccurate measurements of all.

Supratuner...
I have heard the same thing...totally true *thumbs up*. some of that i said in earlier portions of this thread.

First of all, Schister i think its a little bit innappropriate to call people ignorant because of their beliefs especially when they come up with good evidence to support it. Ok with that being said I still don't buy into Creationism. If Carbon dating is really that innacurate why does everyone use it to date fossils? Can it really be that innacurate that it misses the mark from 7000 - 6 billion?? Also i think Creationist use the bible as their basis and try to prove that whereas everyone else (for the most part) seeks the truth through science and comes to the conclusion of evolution. Someone mentioned that the great flood explains why there are no dinasours no more, but if thats true then man did walk with dinasours. And that wouldnt explain how the water dinasours were killed. Also are you telling me that nobody else in the world had a boat when it started to flood? I remember watching a discovery channel show where scientists were trying to prove Noah's Ark, but they showed that there was no way he could have built an arc big enough, given the time and supplies he had, plus the fact that not all animals were located in his area like polar bears and penguins and other exotic animals only found in certain places in the world plus how would they even capture lions and elephants and birds? Plus i think they mentioned that theres not even enough water in the atmosphere or ice caps to cover the entire earth to the hieghts of the tallest mountians. Ok back to evolution and such. I've read that Creationist have many scientific facts that prove the earth is only so many yrs old, but why is it that they believe that these scientific facts (like the rate at which the sun is shrinking) are correct, but others( like carbon dating) are incorrect? I'm sorry but there are still way too many holes to believe in Creationism and the other stories in the bible without taking a giant leap of faith!

Ok I'm in but only temporarily.
I believe in evolution. Science has proven it.
I believe in creationism. Science has no idea and no proof of how all things started from nothing.(just theories)
I don't believe for one second that man evolved from ape and an ape evolved from a fish and a fish evolved from non living slime and non living slime evolved from nothing. I know that's simplifying it somewhat but with 35cents and all the theories out there you can buy a cup of coffee.
I know where I come from and I know where I am going. I have no doubt because I know personally the one who created me. Call me ignorant or brainwashed or closeminded if you want. It still won't change what I know to be true.

:2cents:

Me Out.

First off, evolution is a theory....
In order for something to be "scientifically proven" it has to be able to be recreated. Neither is true with Evolution or Creation, therefore they are both theories.

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years, from the same rock, just different tests.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed. Yet there is more sound and consistent evidence of a younger earth, as posted earlier in this thread.

First off, evolution is a theory....
In order for something to be "scientifically proven" it has to be able to be recreated. Neither is true with Evolution or Creation, therefore they are both theories.
Back up a minute...

Please discuss:

What is a theory?

Then,

Within the context of the scientific method, what is a theory?

Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."

For a postulate to qualify as a scientific theory is must fulfill three basic criteria.

1. The postulate must be observable.

2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification.

3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment must be conceived the failure of which would disprove the postulate.

...
Evolution: Fact or Theory? How can it be both? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_fact.htm)

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is "just a theory" rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.

In fact, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time, and that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed numerous times in the laboratory and in nature and even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of "common descent," that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not actually been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that many people and most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals primarily with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs - this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their theories.

The distinction between fact and theory in evolutionary studies is probably best explained by Stephen Jay Gould:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Unfortunately, sometimes creationists or those not familiar with evolutionary science will misquote or take evolutionary scientists' quotes out of context and make the disagreement over the mechanisms of evolution seem like a disagreement over whether evolution has occurred. This is indicative either of a failure to understand evolution or simply dishonesty.

No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. It is considered a fact based on abundant evidence, though like all scientific facts it can be challenged and rejected on the basis of new evidence or argument. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs.


What is Evolution?
Is Evolution Scientific? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm)

This question isn't as simple as it sounds, but the short answer is yes, evolution is science. Evolution meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as science.

Let's first list the basic criteria necessary for a theory to qualify as scientific:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Is evolution consistent?
Yes, evolution is internally consistent. While there are holes and disagreements as to how evolution occurred and there are some gaps in the evidence for evolution, the idea of common descent is still overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and the basic understanding of how changes take place in living organisms. Evolution is also externally consistent because, contrary to the claims of some, it does not contradict solid findings in any of the other physical sciences.

Is evolution parsimonious?
Yes, evolution it is completely naturalistic and does not add unnecessary concepts. Evolution as simply the genetic changes over time does not rely upon any entities or concepts which do not otherwise exist in science. Evolution as common descent also does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual to add to the universe. So far, the theory of evolution is the simplest and most reliable explanation of the current diversity of life on our planet.

Is evolution useful?
Yes, the theory evolution is very useful. It is the unifying principle of the life sciences, which includes medicine - this means that much of what is done in the medical sciences could not occur without the background premise of evolution. Evolutionary theory also suggests lots of problems for scientists to work on and it provides an overall paradigm for solving current problems within the life sciences.

Can the theory of evolution be tested?
Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.

However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.

What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory. Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable.

Can the theory of evolution be falsified?
Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence for it. The idea of common descent does not rest on one simple idea or single piece of evidence, so to falsify it would require some very significant findings rather than a single bit of anomalous data.

For instance, while finding one fossil in rocks that are much older than would be expected (say, a primate in Precambrian rock) would be improbable, it would be a stretch to say it would falsify evolution. Realistically, one anomaly against all the evidence would be a hard sell, and to be honest, while it would certainly raise issues (and creationists would have a field day), it would probably be chalked up to unknown error.

On the other hand, if a general pattern of finding fossils in rocks reliably dated to much different ages than expected was seen, that would deal a serious blow to the idea of common descent. One possible example of this might be if primate or mammal fossils started consistently turning up in Precambrian rocks - in such a situation, evolution would be in trouble.

What is important to understand here is that evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from a number of different fields. Because of that, a similarly general pattern of contradictory evidence would be required to falsify evolution. Isolated anomalies might at most force a modification of evolutionary theory, but they wouldn't cause it to be dismissed.

Another possible manner in which evolution might be falsified is if our understanding of physics and chemistry changed such that the laws and tests used for determining the age of the earth were found to be incorrect, and new tests showed that the earth was quite young, perhaps on the order of several thousand years. In such an event, the principle of common descent which is the basis of evolutionary theory would be dealt a fatal blow. There are also other any number of other ways in which evolution could be falsified, so there are ways in which the idea of common descent could be invalidated.

Is evolutionary theory correctable and dynamic?
Yes, evolution is dynamic and it is also correctable because it is based solely on the evidence. If the evidence changes so will the theory - as a matter of fact, subtle changes to aspects of evolutionary theory can be observed by anyone who regularly reads biology journals and pays attention to the scientific debates.

Is evolutionary theory progressive?
The idea that a scientific theory should be "progressive" means that a new scientific theory should build on the scientific theories that came before it. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they while providing a new understanding for additional material - something which evolution certainly does.

Another way to understand how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. Thus, it should be possible to compare several explanations for the same phenomena and find that one does a much better job than the others. Some creationists try to argue that evolution is a "religion" because scientists never consider any possible alternatives, but this is certainly untrue. Figure 1 graphically shows what the basic ideas about origins of life look like.



Competing Theories

http://atheism.about.com/library/graphics/Histlife.gif
Figure 1. The vertical direction is time and the horizontal is change of characteristics of life forms. (a) Common descent; (b) Transformationism. Note that species can change significantly but that they have independent starting points. No common ancestry.; (c), (d) and (e) Creationism. (d) and (e) are creationist explanations for extinctions and/or appearance of new species over time such as are shown in the fossil record. Note that while the creationist paradigms are drawn as straight lines some minor variation might be allowed (i.e. within "kinds".)


A major "competitor" for Darwinian evolution was a theory by Jean-Baptist Lamark published in his Philosophie Zoologique (1809). This theory is usually called transformationism. Transformationism proposes that species originated independently (not via common ancestry) but can and have changed significantly since their creation. Lamark's mechanism of evolution is frequently referred to as Lamarkism and has since been discredited, in large part because it is simply not supported by the data.

The general theory of evolution does quite well at meeting the criteria for scientific theories. How about the scientific method: was the idea of common descent arrived at scientifically? Yes - the idea was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent. What's more, that idea is and has been tested repeatedly. So, the general theory was arrived at using the scientific method.

The general theory of evolution was arrived at using the scientific method and it meets the criteria for scientific theories. Yes, evolution is science and it is scientific.

Well said, jay.
Sadly, though it seems somewhat futile to use such a beautifully logical and rational argument as that against creationism; a concept which it astoundingly irrational and fundamentally flawed.

Still, creationism relies on religious faith....belief in something without logic or rational thought.

Well said, jay.For the record, and for clarity, I didn't say anything. I don't want to take credit for another person's writing. I included links to the original articles.