The two main postulates of evolution are:
1. Natural Selection
2. Diversity of Species
The first talks about the process of evolution in how genes are passed on. The second talks about what we observe as a result of that process.
Evolution
Posts
Total:
148
It is possible that evolution is true(I don't know).
What scientific method has been followed? What makes evolution science?
-->
@Mopac
Evolution is a scientific theory because it explains multiple independent phenomena.
Lines of evidence for evolution include the following.
1. The fossil record.
2. Genetics (all life uses the same genetic code and molecular processes and related species share many homologous genes)
3. Comparative anatomy (related species have similar features)
4. Embryology (embryos of related species are often very similar, even when adults look very different)
5. The geographic distribution of species
6. Direct observation of changes in populations over time in nature
7. Direct observations of changes over time in populations in the laboratory in reaction to a vast variety of selective pressures
You just want to discuss a tiny fraction of what evolution can be. There are more theories that are as plausible as the untenable darwinian theory.
I strongly suggest you to have a deeper reading about it, seriously.
First point of evidence, the fossil record.
Can someone explain the scientific process that demonstrates this as evidence of evolution?
-->
@IlDiavolo
There are more theories that are as plausible as the untenable darwinian theory
Name one.
-->
@Mopac
The process is the same, it's the Scientific Method. The observation is that fossils reveal evolutionary change in species over the last 4 billion years
-->
@Goldtop
Name one.
You can find it as non-darwinian evolution. I won't give you so easily.
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, you have nothing to offer?
-->
@Mopac
Mopac, I must say I respect you for asking questions on this topic, it is VERY refreshing to see that here rather than the usual faith based denials. Keep at it and you'll do very well! Kudos!
-->
@Goldtop
I gave you a name. C'mon, think about it at least before replying.
-->
@Goldtop
Mopac, I must say I respect you for asking questions on this topic, it is VERY refreshing to see that here rather than the usual faith based denials. Keep at it and you'll do very well! Kudos!
If you're attempting to target Theists why is this in the science forum?
If you wish to argue this against creation then you will have to show how evolution is not compatible with the PROCESS of creating things. That is precisely what creation means, it's a process.
-->
@IlDiavolo
They've all been refuted as having the problem of not being able to explain certain aspects of species that evolution can explain. Sorry.non-darwinian evolution
-->
@EtrnlVw
I am doing no such thing and there isn't anything I've said to lead to that conclusion, hence you're just making that up.If you're attempting to target Theists why is this in the science forum? If you wish to argue this against creation then you will have to show how evolution is not compatible with the PROCESS of creating things. That is precisely what creation means, it's a process.
There is no such thing as the process of creating things in nature as far as living things are concerned, you are just making that up.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Non-darwinian theories of evolution don't deny that evolution occurred (assuming that we are talking about proposed scientific theories, not religious ones like ID), they just propose that natural selection is not the primary driver.
Probably the most widespread non-darwinian theory today is the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which holds that most mutations are neutral, therefore most evolution at the molecular level is the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection. Even proponents of the neutral theory, however, concede that at the macro level natural selection is paramount.
Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback too, due to recent discoveries in epigenetics, although not in its original form. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call it Lamarckism, since most serious proponents view it as working in tandem with, or on top of, natural selection.
-->
@IlDiavolo
the untenable darwinian theory
Please explain why it is untenable?
-->
@Goldtop
What is the scientific process that goes into determining how old something is? How does the scientific process play in observing the evolutionary change of species?
-->
@Mopac
What is the scientific process that goes into determining how old something is?
There are a number of methods and it depends on what it is you're trying to date.
How does the scientific process play in observing the evolutionary change of species?
Are you asking how the Scientific Method works?
Here's a quick rundown...
-->
@Goldtop
Of course I know what the scientific method is, I would like to see how it is being used in relation to the first evidence that was presented as explained by Stronn.
Telling me there is evidence is not the same as demonstrating the evidence and then explaining the scientific process involved to obtain knowledge.
This is an opportunity to demonstrate that evolution is in fact science.
And anyone is free to answer this question, not just goldtop.
-->
@Stronn
Non-darwinian theories of evolution don't deny that evolution occurred (assuming that we are talking about proposed scientific theories, not religious ones like ID), they just propose that natural selection is not the primary driver.Probably the most widespread non-darwinian theory today is the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which holds that most mutations are neutral, therefore most evolution at the molecular level is the result of genetic drift rather than natural selection. Even proponents of the neutral theory, however, concede that at the macro level natural selection is paramount.Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback too, due to recent discoveries in epigenetics, although not in its original form. In fact, it is probably inaccurate to call it Lamarckism, since most serious proponents view it as working in tandem with, or on top of, natural selection.
Goldtop has to thank you for what you've just explained. That was his task, not yours.
But all the same, I was refering to the mechanisms of evolution. If there are several evolution theories it's because none of them convince us at all, let alone the darwinian theory which is defended by scientists as though Darwin had been a prophet.
-->
@Goldtop
They've all been refuted as having the problem of not being able to explain certain aspects of species that evolution can explain. Sorry.
You don't even know what you're talking about. Lol.
-->
@IlDiavolo
I would not say that the reason there are several theories is because none of them convince us. Rather, I would say there are several theories because no single one of them provides a complete picture.
-->
@Mopac
The genetic evidence is far more compelling than the fossil evidence (of which evolution predates). Now, the fossil record would have been an excellent chance for evolution to be refuted but - amazingly! - it is consistent with common descent.
If you are (truly) interested in evidence for macroevolution, I encourage you to check it out!
-->
@drafterman
Well, the genetic evidence is number 2. Lets do number 1 first.
I am more interested in this being discussed here. Sure, there are tons of textbooks and online resources on this subject. It makes it real easy for someone to defer to another authority and pretend they understand something. I am more interested in this topic being educational.
So we'll get to genetic evidence later on, but for now...
How is the fossil record evidence?
How is the scientific method being followed to show this as evidence? Show the work.
-->
@Mopac
Well, the genetic evidence is number 2. Lets do number 1 first.
Naw. Let's do the genetic evidence as it's more compelling.
Sure, there are tons of textbooks and online resources on this subject. It makes it real easy for someone to defer to another authority and pretend they understand something. I am more interested in this topic being educational.
Are you suggesting it's not educational to read material produced by the experts on the matter? I mean, why reinvent the wheel?
When you've gotten through the provided genetic evidence, let me know if you have any issues.
Darwinian evolution hasn’t been a thing for nearly 100 years - while natural selection is valid and observable, much of Darwin’s theories have been shown to be false, especially his ideas about genetics.
Many people fixated on “Darwinism”, but don’t realize that modern evolution is actually far removed, and is effectively based on the following:
Mendellian Generics - now replaced with modern Genomics.
Linnean Taxonomy - now replaced with Phylogenetic systematics.
Population genetics - laws governing transfer, drift and speciation.
Game Theory - maths governing potential win/loss changes in allele frequency.
Natural Selection as per darwin.
Even the “tree of life” mostly only holds true for Eukaryotes, as Horizontal Gene Transfer has the ability to blend the genetic make up of two disparate species.
-->
@Mopac
i think it may be worth starting at the beginning here. Most people are explaining from what we know now, rather than what was known at Darwin’s time: Evolution May make more sense if you think of it from that point.
So Carl Linnaeus - a creationist - was the first person to go through and try and classify life. What he may have been doing was trying to do, was find the “kinds of the bible” - but I can’t remember enough.
Either way he found a pattern. The pattern was a very specific branching pattern.
At the base you had organisms that had cells with a nucleus and mitochondria and those without. You had a group of animals whose butt hole forms before their mouth and those that form the other way around. But the cells of every animal in both classes had mitochondria and nucleus’s. Then you had a group of creatures with spinal chords: and all of them had butt holes that formed before their mouth, and nucleus’s in their cells and were bilaterally symmetric. You had groups with a spinal column, and skull, and a jaw - if you had a jaw, you had a skull, spinal colum, nucleas in your cells, a butthole that formed before the mouth, are bilaterally symmetric etc. This works all the way up and down life without exception.
traits don’t cross groups if they aren’t share by the parent group too.. If you have a specific feathers - you won’t have gills, or have 5 axis of symmetry like a star fish.
that may sound obtuse: but this is a highly specific pattern. A tree.
Groups within groups within groups.
Darwin proposed an explanation for this: descent with modification. This pattern would emerge if over a period of time a group of organisms split into two distinct groups, with one acquiring a new trait, and the other acquiring a different one, repeat this pattern over and over again and you would get a tree of life.
so that was the starting point - the hypothesis. That all life was related. I’m not done: but wanted to make sure you’re on the same page thus far, and
were happy with what I’ve explained.
Still waiting for science.
I'm sure it's there, but it seems people would rather feed me bull.
Maybe no one here is actually knowledgeable about the science behind evolution. Maybe people around here simply believe what they read.
Well, I'm not going to throw the whole thing out because we've got a lot of pretenders here, but I'd still love to see someone actually show me some scientific methodology being followed.
Surely someone gere can show the science. It shouldn't be that hard.
-->
@Ramshutu
Evolution has been accepted by monotheists hundreds of years before Darwin. The Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun proves this conclusively.
There is absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution that puts into question the existence of God, and the people who believe so are superstitious. Not only that, but I want to make clear that the theory of evolution in no way shape or form excludes the idea that God created everything. In other words, my faith is not threatened by science. That certainly isn't an issue for me.
I think evolution makes a great deal of sense. Making sense does not make something science.
Since this is a science forum, it makes sense that we should talk about whether or not evolution is in fact science. If that can't be demonstrated is it pseudoscience? Or maybe it is still really a hypothesis? Maybe it's partly true or partlfalse? What is it?
I want to see how the scientific method is being followed, and I'm sure someone other than me will benefit.