Is Evolution a fact? Do we know it's true?

[Goose]

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

[Goose]

Now it's time to pony up and prove it.

Science can't prove anything, so how to you expect us to prove evolution to you?

Proof is for math, formal logic, and distilled beverages.

Science provides the best explanation. Having said this, evolution is both a theory and a fact. We know it happens.

If you can't prove evolution how do you know it happens?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 21 by Goose]

There is proof for evolution, he just has a narrow definition of proof.

There is a large body of support for evolution.

Evolution has been observed.
The fossil record shows many instances of evolution.
Common descent of species is known through genetics.
Evolution is a natural product of imperfect replication and probability thereof.

[Divine Insight]

Now it's time to pony up and prove it.

It's already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only people who are not convinced at this stage are unreasonable people.

[Goose]

There is proof for evolution, he just has a narrow definition of proof.

There is a large body of support for evolution.

Evolution has been observed.

What do you mean by evolution? And where has this form of evolution been observed?

The fossil record shows many instances of evolution.

Well, I would argue the fossil record is interpreted through the lens of evolutionary framework. The fossil record also provides problems for evolution, at least in the way Darwin envisioned it. The Cambrian Explosion comes to mind.

Common descent of species is known through genetics.

Again an interpretation of the evidence through an evolutionary framework. Evidence which has caused some evolutionary scientists to claim Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. Evidence which, incidentally, can also be interpreted to support the idea of a common designer.

Evolution is a natural product of imperfect replication and probability thereof.

You’ll have to elaborate on that one.

I think what is happening here is you are inferring evolution, at least Darwinian evolution, are you not?

[scourge99]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

Do you believe its impossible for genetic changes to accumulate overtime such that an organism looks different than its ancestors from millions of years ago?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by Goose]

It seems you are just parroting information from a creationist website.

claims like evolution hasn't been observed cambrian explosion etc. are used frequently and I don't understand it as they are merely wrong.


Take the Cambrian explosion for example. Often referred to the death knell of evolution except for the little fact that it took place 545 million years ago and lasted for 50 million years. Also much of the new life existed underwater and land based animals had yet to appear.

If you use the Cambrian explosion then you also admit that the earth not young as it took place nearly 550 million years ago. Please refer to my post on page 1 as it give a clear and easy to understand example of how evolution works

[Peter]

Mr. Goose. Since you don't believe anything not observed directly what is your theory as to the diversity of life? How do you account for the overwhelming evidence supporting the current Theory of Evolution from almost every branch of modern science? Do you have any education in biology, genetics or any other branch of science which supports the Theory of Evolution? I'm not trying to get personal but when debating this particular topic I think that's a fair question. Thanks.

[Jashwell]

There is proof for evolution, he just has a narrow definition of proof.

There is a large body of support for evolution.

Evolution has been observed.

What do you mean by evolution? And where has this form of evolution been observed?

The change of organic life through natural selection.
(Aside from the below examples) It has been observed in labs and in the outdoors.
For instance, single->multi cellular organism evolution and domesticated species respectively.

The fossil record shows many instances of evolution.

Well, I would argue the fossil record is interpreted through the lens of evolutionary framework. The fossil record also provides problems for evolution, at least in the way Darwin envisioned it. The Cambrian Explosion comes to mind.

Over more than half a hundred million years a lot of evolution happened. This is a problem for evolution?

.. and who cares about 'what Darwin envisioned'?

Common descent of species is known through genetics.

Again an interpretation of the evidence through an evolutionary framework. Evidence which has caused some evolutionary scientists to claim Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. Evidence which, incidentally, can also be interpreted to support the idea of a common designer.

Darwin lived in the 19th century. He was wrong about a lot of things.

Cross breeding and horizontal gene transfer doesn't contradict evolution.

Evolution is a natural product of imperfect replication and probability thereof.

You’ll have to elaborate on that one.

If you have a system that replicates imperfectly, and is pressured, it will evolve. (provided it replicates enough and from a great enough population)

This can be shown from basic computer simulations that merely an imperfect self replicating system and pressure is sufficient.

I think what is happening here is you are inferring evolution, at least Darwinian evolution, are you not?

No more than by observing a trail of footprints I infer a journey. Of course I can't rule out that there was no journey, but a better explanation of the footprints is yet unavailable.

[Goose]

However, evolution (according to biologists / geneticists – people who study such things) is: "genetic change through generations"

If this is all that is meant by the term “evolution� then we have no disagreement. Under this definition I’m an evolutionist and so is every creationist.

Do you believe its impossible for genetic changes to accumulate overtime such that an organism looks different than its ancestors from millions of years ago?

Impossible? No. I can't think of why this would be impossible. But please don't tell me I'm to accept as a fact that in the very distant past my ancestor was an ape-like creature by virtue of it not being impossible.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 24 by Goose]

It seems you are just parroting information from a creationist website.

claims like evolution hasn't been observed cambrian explosion etc. are used frequently and I don't understand it as they are merely wrong.

Then you should quite easily be able to point me to where Darwinian-type evolution has been observed. Why is this so difficult?

Take the Cambrian explosion for example. Often referred to the death knell of evolution except for the little fact that it took place 545 million years ago and lasted for 50 million years. Also much of the new life existed underwater and land based animals had yet to appear.

You are projecting. I didn't refer to the CE as the death knell of evolution. I said it was a problem for evolution at least in the way Darwin envisioned it. By the way, not to split hairs, but the CE is thought to have occurred over as little as 10 million years, not 50. By hey, why quibble over 40 million years, right?

If you use the Cambrian explosion then you also admit that the earth not young as it took place nearly 550 million years ago. Please refer to my post on page 1 as it give a clear and easy to understand example of how evolution works

I'm not a YEC. Your example was a thought experiment that inferred evolution was it not?