Quote:Original post by d000hg
Quote:Evolution is fact. Evolution has been observed to occur. It is impossible for evolution not to occur.
Evolution is based completely on random mutations.
No. Evolution is based upon three things: the inheritance of traits from parent organisms; the random mutation of traits, and a struggle for survival. All three are required for evolution to occur.
Quote:
It cannot involve a designer in any way.
Nonsense. You've edged out the possibility of a designer by boldly asserting that mutations are random. Science, however, cannot prove that mutations are truly random. In fact, we know that they are not: some genes are less likely to mutate than others.
It is
possible that mutations are not random at all, but that a powerful entity, let's call it God, is choosing what mutations occur.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with physics, only biology.
How is the scientific field of stufy to which evolution 'belongs' relevent to whether or not it has been observed to occur?
Quote:
I think it only refers to large-scale change rather than individual mutations but that [could] be inaccurate.
I would suggest checking your facts before entering an argument. But you are honest enough to admit that you aren't sure.
Some scientists refer to "macroevolution" and "microevolution". Macroevolution is evolution over vast time periods. You are indeed correct in that macroevolution has not been observed to occur: we don't live long enough. Microevolution is evolution over much shorter time periods. It has been frequently observed.
Of course, to say that macroevolution hasn't been observed is a vacuous truth. Macroevolution hasn't be observed since macroevolution is, by definition, any evolutionary change which occured over too long a time period for it to be observed.
Many creationists claim that microevolution is possible (they must do, since it has been observed to occur) but that macroevolution is not possible (which is, on the face of it, a more reasonable claim, since macroevolution has not been observed and perhaps never will be).
Most evolutionists take the viewpoint that macroevolution and microevolution are the same. The only distinction is the timescale. The actual physical processes of the two are the same. If microevolution occurs, then macroevolution
must occur.
Quote:
In any case it has not been observed because we don't live long enough lives.
Incorrect.
To recap from above, evolution over vast time periods has indeed not been directly observed. However, evolution over very short time periods has been observed a great many times.
One common example is industrial melanism. Kettleworth's peppered moths are probably the most famous example, although there is some suggestion that he may have doctored the results, so that experiment itself may not be sound. However, industrial melanism has been observed in subsequent studies.
Other examples are less famous but far more significant. Bacteria evolve resistance against antibiotics, and viruses evolve resistance against antiviral treatment.
The MRSA bacterium, first seen in 1947, is resistant to
methicillin, a drug that that killed its ancestor
Staphylococcus aureus. Vancomycin, first used in 1962, is a drug that was effective against MRSA. In 2002, a new strain of MRSA was identified which is resistant to Vancomycin (this strain is called VISA). Note that these strains are
new. So there are two examples of evolution here,
Staphylococcus aureus evolved into MRSA, which evolved into VISA. Before that, even,
Staphylococcus aureus evolved resistance to penicillin.
The HIV virus, first seen in 1959, is believed to have evolved from the SIV virus. It has twelve major subtypes, although even that figure doesn't tell the whole story because the HIV virus mutates so rapidly that if one patient infects another, the HIV virus in the two patients will evolve into quite distinct strains. HIV is, quite literally, a polymorphic virus. This is one of the reasons that finding a vaccine has proven exceptionally difficult.
Many creationists claim that all observed evolution is merely change 'within a kind'. They make a distinction between evolution within a species, and evolution that results in a new species -- which they claim is impossible. However, there are numerous examples of observed
speciation.
Quote:
We can in theory look at the fossil record and infer it, which changes it from fact to the best theory fitting the evidence.
In theory? Nobody could dispute that we can look at the fossil record. Being able to look at the fossil record is fact, not theory.
However, in your apparent complaint you have identified the very heart of science. Many creationists fail to distinguish between the "theory of evolution" and the "fact of evolution."
The fact of evolution is the observed facts. We have observed organisms developing traits not present in their ancestors which render them more likely to survive to produce descendants of their own. That
is evolution.
The theory of evolution is the theory that the life we see around us is the result of evolution from a common ancestor. The fossil record supports the theory -- it does not falsify it.
The theory of evolution is indeed the theory that best fits the evidence. Not only does it explain almost all observations, it also explains why certain things
haven't been observed. It also makes predictions. The fundamental predictions of the theory of evolution are simple: that evolution will continue to be observed to occur in the future, and that the fossil record will continue to support the theory of common descent.
Quote:
Quote:The incompleteness of the fossil record is not a problem at all. More fossils might give us more information about specific evolutionary pathways, but so far everything that has been found has been consistent with the idea that life has evolved.
But the problem is that for most all cases, the situation is analogous with being given 2/3 points and told to find the curve through them - simply not enough data to get a meaningful result.
How many points do you need for it to be meaningful?
Quote:
The data fit when Darwin made it, I guess, in the sense that all mammals have a similar skeletal system.
Darwin didn't just study mammals.
Quote:
But as I already said, he himself said that the fossil record would need to rapidly become much more complete. Not just to verify his theory, but that if it didn't, his theory was not correct.
Absolutely not. Lack of evidence can never disprove a theory. But I may have the theory that I have mail in my inbox. If I never looked, would that prove that I didn't have mail? Obviously not. The worst lack of evidence can do is dissuade scientists being from interested in a theory: a theory that has never been tested is of no use to anyone.
Quote:
We've had a long time since then - the number of fosils we've found must be 100's of times greater - but AFAIK the fossil record is not much different.
Well that doesn't follow at all. We've found tens of millions of fossils. The fossil record is obviously different.
Quote:
He based a theory on a small data sample and made a prediction. However if a much larger data sample doesn't give extra strength to the theory, that weakens it.
Well, no. The only thing that weakens a theory is data that contradicts with it. Extra data that confirms what we already know doesn't weaken a theory. It is true that not many intermediary forms have been found. However, lack of evidence cannot disprove a theory. Each and every fossil is a test of evolution. Those fossils that are incompatible with the theory of common ancestor are what need concern scientists.
If we were to find a fossilised giraffe in rock known to be hundreds of millions of years old, that would weigh heavily against the theory. Not such fossils have been found. There are gaps in the fossil record, but they may yet be filled.
Quote:
Quote:Biochemists may have problems with particular versions of evolutionary theories, but without evolution in general, biochemistry would be far less advanced than it is.
Why?
Because evolution is the reason why biochemical systems are the way they are. If a biochemist sees some chemical process that is confusing, she can use the knowledge that the process is the result of evolution to help understand it. She knows that processes in related organisms involving similar chemicals and occuring in similar circumstances are likely to be related to the one she is investigating. If the method and purpose of one of those processes is already understood, that aids her understanding of the process she is investigating.
