Theory of Evolution exposed

[PaulSacramento]

I found this one that sums up 9 points of issues with whale evolution:
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i11f.htm

[RickD]

Can everyone be honest here? What is a scientific fact?

scientific fact:
an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

Main Entry: scientific fact
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

How much of evolution has been observed and confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true? And how much of evolution is assumed repeatedly and accepted as true?

[PaulSacramento]

Can everyone be honest here? What is a scientific fact?

scientific fact:
an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

Main Entry: scientific fact
Part of Speech: n
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

How much of evolution has been observed and confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true? And how much of evolution is assumed repeatedly and accepted as true?

Micro, yes, macro, no.
Micro is proven and because it has been proven, logic follows that, given enough time, macro is a distinct possibility.

[RickD]

And also, it would help if all sides came to an agreement on what macroevolution is. "Random" means different things, depending on which side of the evolution argument one is on. I've heard some creationists use the word "random" in a way that evolutionists don't mean. Could that be the same with macroevolution? Could we agree that the theory behind macroevolution is common decent? Or, macroevolution is the theory that all living things on earth evolved from a common ancestor? Is that a fair meaning of macroevolution?

[PaulSacramento]

Some bring up the issue of the Ecoli epxeriment as proof of macroevolution BUT did the ecoli evolve to a different type of ecoli or different species ?

[PaulSacramento]

And also, it would help if all sides came to an agreement on what macroevolution is. "Random" means different things, depending on which side of the evolution argument one is on. I've heard some creationists use the word "random" in a way that evolutionists don't mean. Could that be the same with macroevolution? Could we agree that the theory behind macroevolution is common decent? Or, macroevolution is the theory that all living things on earth evolved from a common ancestor? Is that a fair meaning of macroevolution?

I don't think that'll happen because for some evolutionary biologists the term "macroevolution" isn't even a term they use.

[RickD]

From wikipedia as evidence for common decent:

Common biochemistry and genetic code

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent.[11] A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins.

Why couldn't this mean that the Creator created a building block for life(DNA), and used it for all living things? Genetic information is encoded in DNA not because all life on earth came from a common ancestor, but because the Creator used DNA to encode genetic information. God used the same "stuff" to create all different kinds of life. Couldn't the "stuff" that God used, be mistaken for a common ancestor?

[PaulSacramento]

From wikipedia as evidence for common decent:

Common biochemistry and genetic code

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent.[11] A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins.

Why couldn't this mean that the Creator created a building block for life(DNA), and used it for all living things? Genetic information is encoded in DNA not because all life on earth came from a common ancestor, but because the Creator used DNA to encode genetic information. God used the same "stuff" to create all different kinds of life. Couldn't the "stuff" that God used, be mistaken for a common ancestor?

If by common ancestor you mean a common gene(s), yes.
You will find common elements of the universe in all life forms, you may not find all of them of course, but all life forms on earth share common elements in one way or another.

[RickD]

And also, it would help if all sides came to an agreement on what macroevolution is. "Random" means different things, depending on which side of the evolution argument one is on. I've heard some creationists use the word "random" in a way that evolutionists don't mean. Could that be the same with macroevolution? Could we agree that the theory behind macroevolution is common decent? Or, macroevolution is the theory that all living things on earth evolved from a common ancestor? Is that a fair meaning of macroevolution?

I don't think that'll happen because for some evolutionary biologists the term "macroevolution" isn't even a term they use.

Is that because they assume macroevolution from microevolution, and just call it evolution? Or is there another reason? I know I'm looking for a general answer, where biologists may have their own specific answer.

[PaulSacramento]

And also, it would help if all sides came to an agreement on what macroevolution is. "Random" means different things, depending on which side of the evolution argument one is on. I've heard some creationists use the word "random" in a way that evolutionists don't mean. Could that be the same with macroevolution? Could we agree that the theory behind macroevolution is common decent? Or, macroevolution is the theory that all living things on earth evolved from a common ancestor? Is that a fair meaning of macroevolution?

I don't think that'll happen because for some evolutionary biologists the term "macroevolution" isn't even a term they use.

Is that because they assume macroevolution from microevolution, and just call it evolution? Or is there another reason? I know I'm looking for a general answer, where biologists may have their own specific answer.

Most don't see a division they see macroevolution as the name of the end result of microevolution.
Microevolution over 1000's of generations = macroevolution.

[RickD]

From wikipedia as evidence for common decent:

Common biochemistry and genetic code

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent.[11] A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins.

Why couldn't this mean that the Creator created a building block for life(DNA), and used it for all living things? Genetic information is encoded in DNA not because all life on earth came from a common ancestor, but because the Creator used DNA to encode genetic information. God used the same "stuff" to create all different kinds of life. Couldn't the "stuff" that God used, be mistaken for a common ancestor?

If by common ancestor you mean a common gene(s), yes.
You will find common elements of the universe in all life forms, you may not find all of them of course, but all life forms on earth share common elements in one way or another.

Well, unless I'm reading the paragraph above wrong, an argument for common decent is:

"(the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans."

What I'm saying is that is not an argument for common decent. It's an argument for a designer who used a common design.

[PaulSacramento]

From wikipedia as evidence for common decent:

Common biochemistry and genetic code

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent.[11] A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins.

Why couldn't this mean that the Creator created a building block for life(DNA), and used it for all living things? Genetic information is encoded in DNA not because all life on earth came from a common ancestor, but because the Creator used DNA to encode genetic information. God used the same "stuff" to create all different kinds of life. Couldn't the "stuff" that God used, be mistaken for a common ancestor?

If by common ancestor you mean a common gene(s), yes.
You will find common elements of the universe in all life forms, you may not find all of them of course, but all life forms on earth share common elements in one way or another.

Well, unless I'm reading the paragraph above wrong, an argument for common decent is:

"(the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria to humans."

What I'm saying is that is not an argument for common decent. It's an argument for a designer who used a common design.

Ah yes, in THAT regard, you may be correct.
If all life forms do that the same, then yes, there is a common design in that regard.

[RickD]

Also from wikipedia in arguments for common decent:

Natural selection
Main article: Natural selection
Darwin's finches

Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which heritable traits that increase an individual's fitness become more common, and heritable traits that decrease an individual's fitness become less common.

Instead of being evidence for macroevolution/common decent, this can be seen as evidence that a Creator had the forethought to see that the traits that "increase an individual's fitness" become more common, so life continues. What is seen as Natural Selection, is really the simple idea that the Creator wanted life to be able to change, adapt, and survive. Not change and die off.

And another:

Darwin's finches
Main article: Darwin's finches

During Charles Darwin's studies on the Galápagos Islands, Darwin observed 13 species of finches that are closely related and differ most markedly in the shape of their beaks. The beak of each species is suited to the food available in its particular environment, suggesting that beak shapes evolved by natural selection. Large beaks were found on the islands where the primary source of food for the finches are nuts and therefore the large beaks allowed the birds to be better equipped for opening the nuts and staying well nourished. Slender beaks were found on the finches which found insects to be the best source of food on the island they inhabited; their slender beaks allowed the birds to be better equipped for pulling out the insects from their tiny hiding places. The finch is also found on the main land and it is thought that they migrated to the islands and began adapting to their environment through natural selection.

Is this even what we are calling "macroevolution"? We're talking about different kinds of finches. Not dinosaurs growing fins to adapt to an environment that had more food in the water instead of on land.

[RickD]

At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, couldn't all the supposed evidence that is seen as evidence for common decent really be evidence for a common designer?

[bippy123]

Also from wikipedia in arguments for common decent:

Natural selection
Main article: Natural selection
Darwin's finches

Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which heritable traits that increase an individual's fitness become more common, and heritable traits that decrease an individual's fitness become less common.

Instead of being evidence for macroevolution/common decent, this can be seen as evidence that a Creator had the forethought to see that the traits that "increase an individual's fitness" become more common, so life continues. What is seen as Natural Selection, is really the simple idea that the Creator wanted life to be able to change, adapt, and survive. Not change and die off.

And another:

Darwin's finches
Main article: Darwin's finches

During Charles Darwin's studies on the Galápagos Islands, Darwin observed 13 species of finches that are closely related and differ most markedly in the shape of their beaks. The beak of each species is suited to the food available in its particular environment, suggesting that beak shapes evolved by natural selection. Large beaks were found on the islands where the primary source of food for the finches are nuts and therefore the large beaks allowed the birds to be better equipped for opening the nuts and staying well nourished. Slender beaks were found on the finches which found insects to be the best source of food on the island they inhabited; their slender beaks allowed the birds to be better equipped for pulling out the insects from their tiny hiding places. The finch is also found on the main land and it is thought that they migrated to the islands and began adapting to their environment through natural selection.

Is this even what we are calling "macroevolution"? We're talking about different kinds of finches. Not dinosaurs growing fins to adapt to an environment that had more food in the water instead of on land.

This is the problem Rick, this isnt macroevolution but microevolution, I had this discussion here before and no one can even come up of one example of macroevolution . Its an evolution of the gaps theory. Evolutionists say it happened becqause evolutionists say it happened lol.