Is evolution a fact?

[Aletheia]

As far as I know there are three main independent facts of the natural world that characterize Evolution. Evolution is a consequence of these facts.

1) replication (offspring)
2) variation (variety)
3) natural selection (survival of fittest)

I don't think anyone here would dispute those facts. Therefore, evolution must be the logical consequence of those facts. Species clearly evolve.

And I would further say, that not only is it a good working model, but there are several disparate fields that corroborate the theory. No one knew about DNA years ago, and might have refuted humans and chimpanzees sharing close to 100% (98.8%) of DNA. Now we indisputably know this as fact. I think the main reason that Theists are so threatened by this model is if it is true, then it falsifies one of the most fundamental premises of the bible -- God created fully formed Man and Woman first.

I would accept having a supernatural entity that put the universe into original motion. But, the bible is just another faulty (fictitious) model that doesn't fit everything we now know.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well with regard to evolution there's no way to ever prove or disprove it so it remains a theory it is a very well supported theory. It is probably the closest thing we'll ever have to a fact regarding the origin of the species.

Remember, Newtonian gravitational theory was a very very very well supported theory for around 250 years, but fundamentally, absolutely, ireconcilably wrong.

 

[devildavid]

From the man who said that it's true there's no such thing as truth.

No, I said there is no such thing as truth.

But you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fossils are by their very nature rare and inconsistent that is why DNA has become the primary method of studying evolution. It would be suspicious if the fossil record actually included every single step of millions of years of human evolution but we have found an impressive array of human relatives anyway now by using their DNA.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ls-first-look-enigmatic-human-relative/#close

A discontinuous fossil record cannot prove a continuous process, the rarity is purported, they might not be rare at all and its our expectations that are wrong.

This is a common reaction from evolutionists - discontinuous fossils prove continuous evolution because the discontinuities are due to preservation conditions and not from a true absence of expected fossils.

Evolutionists always attribute the "rarity" to unfavorable preservation conditions and never attribute it to a true absence of the thing they expect was preserved.

The theory is laced with ambiguities and the evolutionist always resolves the ambiguity in the way that is most favorable to their beliefs, this is why evolution appears infallible, solidly supported and so on - it actually isn't, it is a master stroke of deception.

 

[Irredentist]

Remember, Newtonian gravitational theory was a very very very well supported theory for around 250 years, but fundamentally, absolutely, ireconcilably wrong.

Newtonian gravitational theory was an excellent theory for explaining gravitational mechanics. It still is an excellent theory, which is why it's taught in classrooms across the world. It is only superseded by the theory of relativity when extreme accuracy is needed.

 

[Irredentist]

A discontinuous fossil record cannot prove a continuous process, the rarity is purported, they might not be rare at all and its our expectations that are wrong.

This is a common reaction from evolutionists - discontinuous fossils prove continuous evolution because the discontinuities are due to preservation conditions and not from a true absence of expected fossils.

Evolutionists always attribute the "rarity" to unfavorable preservation conditions and never attribute it to a true absence of the thing they expect was preserved.

The theory is laced with ambiguities and the evolutionist always resolves the ambiguity in the way that is most favorable to their beliefs, this is why evolution appears infallible, solidly supported and so on - it actually isn't, it is a master stroke of deception.

Organic material only fossilizes under very specific conditions, and most species don't die in areas that are ideal for fossil preservation. Their bodies rot away to nothing instead. This means that compared to every organism that has ever died, fossils are rare. Is this some kind of wild conjecture? It seems like common sense to me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, I said there is no such thing as truth.

Very well, in which case what you just wrote is untrue.

But you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

Except I do and any honest visitor to this site who's interacted with me will likely disagree with you David, this is another atheist ploy - claiming to understand science better than the theist, claiming to understand what a theory is better than the theist, claiming to be rational and logical yet at the same time stating absurdities like there's no such thing as truth and insisting that this is nevertheless a true statement.

I've told you already several times I was an atheist until my early twenties, I studied theoretical physics and mathematics until my mid twenties, I am far better placed to discuss and contemplate these issues than you.

 

[devildavid]

Very well, in which case what you just wrote is untrue.



Except I do and any honest visitor to this site who's interacted with me will likely disagree with you David, this is another atheist ploy - claiming to understand science better than the theist, claiming to understand what a theory is better than the theist, claiming to be rational and logical yet at the same time stating absurdities like there's no such thing as truth and insisting that this is nevertheless a true statement.

I've told you already several times I was an atheist until my early twenties, I studied theoretical physics and mathematics until my mid twenties, I am far better placed to discuss and contemplate these issues than you.

If you knew what a scientific theory is you wouldn't have started this thread. There is zero distinction between a fact and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not possible without facts.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Newtonian gravitational theory was an excellent theory for explaining gravitational mechanics. It still is an excellent theory, which is why it's taught in classrooms across the world. It is only superseded by the theory of relativity when extreme accuracy is needed.

But it is wrong, absolutely, emphatically wrong - there is no "action at a distance" there is no "aether" there is no "universal time" there is no "instantaneous propagation" of changes in gravitational field potential - Newton's theory was absolutely wrong as an explanation for what we observe.

This does not mean it has no utility, I never said that, it is as you say immensely practical for most needs but as an explanation for physical reality it is hopeless.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Organic material only fossilizes under very specific conditions, and most species don't die in areas that are ideal for fossil preservation. Their bodies rot away to nothing instead. This means that compared to every organism that has ever died, fossils are rare. Is this some kind of wild conjecture? It seems like common sense to me.

Yes, yes, yes I know, I've read most of the books on this for decades, I'm no novice.

How can you prove to me that fossilization is rare? by not finding fossils?

Pixies do exist but they are very rare, I know they are rare because I can never find any pixies in my garden.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you knew what a scientific theory is you wouldn't have started this thread.

Yet I do know what a theory is and I did start this thread, therefore you are wrong in your reasoning as usual.

There is zero distinction between a fact and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not possible without facts.

I've corrected you before David when you spout off like this, a theory is not based upon "facts" it is based upon axioms, this is fundamental to understanding what theories are, it is you who is bereft of understanding David.

Tell me, tell us all David, what is an axiom? what do you understand by the term?

 

[devildavid]

But it is wrong, absolutely, emphatically wrong - there is no "action at a distance" there is no "aether" there is no "universal time" there is no "instantaneous propagation" of changes in gravitational field potential - Newton's theory was absolutely wrong as an explanation for what we observe.

This does not mean it has no utility, I never said that, it is as you say immensely practical for most needs but as an explanation for physical reality it is hopeless.

Newton did not include any of this in his theory.

 

[Irredentist]

But it is wrong, absolutely, emphatically wrong - there is no "action at a distance" there is no "aether" there is no "universal time" there is no "instantaneous propagation" of changes in gravitational field potential - Newton's theory was absolutely wrong as an explanation for what we observe.

This does not mean it has no utility, I never said that, it is as you say immensely practical for most needs but as an explanation for physical reality it is hopeless.

But how did we realize that Newtonian gravitation was wrong?

We realized it because Einstein came up with a better theory, the theory of relativity.

So until someone comes up with a better theory than evolution, we're stuck with it, because at the moment there's not a single viable alternative.

 

[Irredentist]

Yes, yes, yes I know, I've read most of the books on this for decades, I'm no novice.

How can you prove to me that fossilization is rare? by not finding fossils?

Pixies do exist but they are very rare, I know they are rare because I can never find any pixies in my garden.

You'd have to find at least one pixie first in order to prove that they existed at all. We have found lots of fossils.

Some extinct species are known only from a single fossil specimen. However, there must have been more of them alive at some point, or they wouldn't have been a species. This means that fossilization is comparatively rare.

 

[devildavid]

Yet I do know what a theory is and I did start this thread, therefore you are wrong in your reasoning as usual.



I've corrected you before David when you spout off like this, a theory is not based upon "facts" it is based upon axioms, this is fundamental to understanding what theories are, it is you who is bereft of understanding David.

Tell me, tell us all David, what is an axiom? what do you understand by the term?

No, you don't know, because you think it can be distinguished from fact. You present an false choice between fact and scientific theory when they are one and the same.

 

[CLAX1911]

Remember, Newtonian gravitational theory was a very very very well supported theory for around 250 years, but fundamentally, absolutely, ireconcilably wrong.

Sure, should some evidence come to light or just a better theory come into existence than yeah the theory of evolution would have to change.

 

[distraff]

Remember, Newtonian gravitational theory was a very very very well supported theory for around 250 years, but fundamentally, absolutely, ireconcilably wrong.

It wasn't wrong, it just wasn't perfect and left out some stuff. But it works for most of physics. In the same way, the theory of relativity doesn't actually work in the micro-level and that is why we have quantum mechanics. Scientists hope to discover a theory that unites them. These theories are true in domains where they work but there is always a bigger picture to be discovered.

 

[iguanaman]

A discontinuous fossil record cannot prove a continuous process, the rarity is purported, they might not be rare at all and its our expectations that are wrong.

This is a common reaction from evolutionists - discontinuous fossils prove continuous evolution because the discontinuities are due to preservation conditions and not from a true absence of expected fossils.

Evolutionists always attribute the "rarity" to unfavorable preservation conditions and never attribute it to a true absence of the thing they expect was preserved.

The theory is laced with ambiguities and the evolutionist always resolves the ambiguity in the way that is most favorable to their beliefs, this is why evolution appears infallible, solidly supported and so on - it actually isn't, it is a master stroke of deception.

You might even have a point if DNA was not discovered. The example I linked to gave an example of a human ancestor with a sparse fossil record that we now know far more about because we found its DNA. It is ridiculous to place doubt on evolution when we know the mechanism. We can't have been created by God when our DNA says we evolved here on Earth and are just another of the Earths animals. Instead of worry and doubt that fact should being you peace in knowing you are a child of the Earth. Not some foreign creature placed here on a whim by some cosmic muffin. Does that mean that we will all live and die here like every other living thing? Most likely yes but even that should bring you peace. Make the most of your life. It is a miracle in itself.

 

[watsup]

A discontinuous fossil record cannot prove a continuous process, the rarity is purported, they might not be rare at all and its our expectations that are wrong.

This is a common reaction from evolutionists - discontinuous fossils prove continuous evolution because the discontinuities are due to preservation conditions and not from a true absence of expected fossils.

Evolutionists always attribute the "rarity" to unfavorable preservation conditions and never attribute it to a true absence of the thing they expect was preserved.

The theory is laced with ambiguities and the evolutionist always resolves the ambiguity in the way that is most favorable to their beliefs, this is why evolution appears infallible, solidly supported and so on - it actually isn't, it is a master stroke of deception.

Do you never tire of repetition.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Newton did not include any of this in his theory.

His theory assumed that gravitation acts instantaneously

But Newton agreed, in Janiak’s view, with an immaterial ether

According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.

Looks like you were not telling the truth David, no surprises there since you don't believe in truth.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But how did we realize that Newtonian gravitation was wrong?
We realized it because Einstein came up with a better theory, the theory of relativity.

This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.

So until someone comes up with a better theory than evolution, we're stuck with it, because at the moment there's not a single viable alternative.

This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.

Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.

You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, you don't know, because you think it can be distinguished from fact. You present an false choice between fact and scientific theory when they are one and the same.

More deranged and unhinged waffle David, surely you can see why you remind me of Trump so much, you just make stuff up as you go, your world is the real world everybody else is just wrong.

 

[distraff]

This is not true, there were several indications that Newton was wrong, before 1905.



This is not how science works - wrong means that observations are not consistent with empirical expectations, we don't pretend wrong is right until a "better" theory is proposed.

Falsification of a theory does not hinge the existence of alternative theories.

You atheist's love to spout off about how educated you are, how much better you understand science than the theist, what a sham.

I hope you realize that scientists STILL believe in the theory of gravity. Every single student still learns it in class. The theory of gravity is correct that there is an attractive force between matter than explains the motion of objects on earth an in the heavens. The problem is that there was more to it, but the basic theory was correct. And it still works in a large scope of phenomena.

 

[Triton]

Try using Newtonian mechanics to design GPS systems and see how well that goes. It's wrong, but it's a sufficient approximation in many cases to calculate how moving (and static) bodies behave on Earth, which is why people still learn about Newtonian mechanics at university (especially engineers).

 

[watsup]

More deranged and unhinged waffle David, surely you can see why you remind me of Trump so much, you just make stuff up as you go, your world is the real world everybody else is just wrong.

Psychological projection.