Evolution is Fact

[freeztar]

New evidence trumping creationism...

 

The discovery of a missing link in the evolution of bizarre flatfishes—each of which has both eyes on the same side of its head—could give intelligent design advocates a sinking feeling.

 

CT scans of 50-million-year-old fossils have revealed an intermediate species between primitive flatfishes (with eyes on both sides of their heads) and the modern, lopsided versions, which include sole, flounder, and halibut.

 

So the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe, the authors of the new study say.

 

The longstanding gap in the flatfish fossil record has long been explained by a "hopeful monster"—scientific jargon for an unknown animal blessed with a severe but helpful mutation that was passed down to its descendants.

 

Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

[coldcreation]

New evidence trumping creationism...

 

Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

 

 

 

This from a couple of years back is another blow to proponents of intelligent design, from the Devonian era (417 Myr to 354 Myr ago). Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution

 

Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals' date=' showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago.

 

Palaeontologists have said that the find, a crocodile-like animal called the Tiktaalik roseae and described today in the journal Nature, could become an icon of evolution in action - like Archaeopteryx, the famous fossil that bridged the gap between reptiles and birds.

 

As such, it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design, who claim that the many gaps in the fossil record show evidence of some higher power.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: "Our emergence on to the land is one of the more significant rites of passage in our evolutionary history, and Tiktaalik is an important link in the story."[/quote']

 

 

 

 

Here is a similar article, with some photos, from The New York Times: Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals

 

The skeletons have the fins' date=' scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans...

 

...Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

And this one from a few months ago: Deer-like fossil is a missing link in whale evolution

 

A racoon-sized mammal which lived in India about 48 million years ago' date=' may represent one of the missing links in whale evolution, suggests a new fossil study.

 

The research also challenges the idea that cetaceans – the order that includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises – split from their land-dwelling forebears and returned to the water to hunt aquatic prey.

 

Researchers studying 48-million-year-old fossils of Indohyus – an extinct animal which may have looked like a small deer – from ancient riverbeds in Kashmir suggest that the fossils represent a likely ancestor of the cetaceans...

 

...“It’s really very important, because it shows evidence of one of the major shifts in the evolution of mammals, the shift toward being carnivorous,” says Christian de Muizon at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France of the differing diets of the two groups.[/quote']

 

Here is a streaming video about the whale evolution (Nature, International Weekly Journal of Science).

 

 

 

It doesn't look like incoming evidence in favor of evolution (missing links or not) is going to cease anytime soon.

 

 

 

CC

[questor]

Is the argument here that there could not be intelligent design of the universe because life has evolved over time? What is proved by evolution, and how does it negate the possibility of intelligent design?

[Buffy]

No, Intelligent Design offers no testable hypotheses, and thus is not a valid scientific theory. This has been rehashed endlessly in earlier threads on the topic. I encourage you to go back and look at those rather than trying to turn this already tortured thread into yet another defense of ID.

 

Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble, :confused:

Buffy

[JulianKeller]

This should put an end to the discussion of if Evolution is even real or not.

 

Founder effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[questor]

If you don't want further discussion, the thread should be closed. I'm not trying to re-open a can of worms, I'm merely asking how the presence of evolution of life on earth negates the possibility of intelligent design of the universe. This seems a fair question.

[Buffy]

That's fine. However if you do wish to discuss support for ID, please take it to one of the ID-specific threads.

 

Now to address your question, there are several levels of distinction that can be made about an "intelligent designer":

• A meddling designer: one who made arbitrary decisions about how evolution proceeded. There is no evidence of this, as Evolution has sufficient explanatory power to account for what we perceive, and despite claims of "irreducible complexity" there is no known counter example to evolution that requires such intervention.
  
• An initial-conditions setting designer: one who defined the initial laws and parameters which drive our universe. Both the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations adequately account for our "initial conditions" and are not contradicted by any observable phenomena.
  
• Uninvolved designer: This is an interesting one because it assigns no actual "designing" role to the Creator, and as it is not emotionally satisfying, not many people ascribe to it. It also by definition ensures that there can be no evidence that such a creator exists.

Now to answer your specific question, does this *prove* that there is no "Creator" or "Designer?" No, it does not, but it is by definition not possible to use the scientific method to prove a negative.

 

In combination with the above points however, all this says that the personal belief that there is/was an Intelligent Designer is a personal opinion that you are free to hold, but it is not a scientific theory and thus has no bearing on whether or not Evolution is a "Fact."

 

I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them, :confused:

Buffy

[questor]

I am not arguing against the existence of evolution. I am merely saying that the presence of it does not negate the possibility of Intelligent Design. I also will not argue for ID except to say that as I perceive observable evidence there is much more for the possibility than against it. This is my opinion, others differ.

[REASON]

People often see what they want to see.

[questor]

and some see but do not comprehend.

[Buffy]

I am not arguing against the existence of evolution. I am merely saying that the presence of it does not negate the possibility of Intelligent Design. I also will not argue for ID except to say that as I perceive observable evidence there is much more for the possibility than against it. This is my opinion, others differ.

Nothing wrong with that. In the post above, I'm agreeing with your premise, and you're certainly free to perceive the evidence as you do!

 

That belief is not supported by science, however, because there is no supportive evidence in its favor or counter-examples negating the Evolutionary explanation, so there's no foundation for ID being considered as an "alternative" explanation in a scientific context.

 

Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms, :hihi:

Buffy

[questor]

If all life began by some action in the ''primordial soup'', it would seem that this occurrence had a cause or happened by accident. The same applies to the universe itself, there was a cause, or there wasn't ( if you believe in BB).

When I view spin, orbiting, gratity, time and countless other phenomenae that exist, I say this evidence of intelligence outweighs any evidence that it was all happenstance. As I said others may have evidence to the other side. I personally don't care which answer is correct, I just go with the flow.

[REASON]

and some see but do not comprehend.

 

Which is so often why they revert to seeing what they want to see. :hihi:

[Moontanman]

If all life began by some action in the ''primordial soup'', it would seem that this occurrence had a cause or happened by accident.

 

You are proceeding from a distorted and totally outdated premise. "Some action" implies a sudden "there was life" This has never been a part of abiogenesis theory. Life didn't suddenly start from nothing, newer theories cannot even be simplified in this manner. Life was a gradual process that at no one time could be split into "nonlife/life" many varied processes came together slowly to eventually produce life like chemistry that slowly became more and more lifelike. If you could go back in time and watch this whole process in real time there would be no way to suddenly point and say "there is life" and everything before this was nonlife, the process is a natural result of how the universe works. No one stood by and decided to start life at some point.

 

The same applies to the universe itself, there was a cause, or there wasn't ( if you believe in BB).

When I view spin, orbiting, gratity, time and countless other phenomenae that exist, I say this evidence of intelligence outweighs any evidence that it was all happenstance. As I said others may have evidence to the other side. I personally don't care which answer is correct, I just go with the flow.

 

Other people better versed in this part of theory will have to explain this not exactly my cup of tea.

[Buffy]

What questor is saying he believes has been refuted many times elsewhere.

 

At the same time, he's very clearly saying that its his personal view, and that is something he can't be denied.

 

You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think, :hihi:

Buffy

[Galapagos]

I'm sure most of you heard about the recent findings from the team lead by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University, but I think it deserves a mention in this thread as it is a unique piece of evidence demonstrating the fact of evolution. Carl Zimmer at his blog The Loom covered it quite well a few weeks back:

A New Step In Evolution | The Loom | Discover Magazine

 

Also, I think this Stephen Jay Gould quote fits the theme of this thread very well:

 

Stephen Jay Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory," 1994

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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." 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 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 assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[questor]

Moon, you nor anyone else knows how life originally occurred. Common sense

would dictate that at some particulate level the ''spark'' of life was ignited. No one knows how or at what particulate level this occurred. Even now, no one knows at what level life exists or exactly what life is.