Why Evolution is science

Which both have bones, a central vertebrate nervous system, a closed circulatory system, calciferous teeth, aerobic cellular metabolism, and generate amino acid polypeptides based on the same substitution codes. Well, we can observe the changes over millions of years; the fossil record provides a static record of changes that have occured in the past.Moreover, we can see it happen in the present, too; we make direct observations of new species arising from old ones. Untrue. Evolution is based on scientific evidence, not assumptions.

Would you say that any fossil animal that has feathers would be ancestral to birds? Would you rather embrace ignorance than find out?The obvious way is to look at the evidence and see where it leads. Reconstructing the history of fossils is not significantly different than reconstructing crime scenes.At least you are not claiming that the world is only several thousand years old.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Please note the part bolded.Whoever told you that lied to you.If it was a Pastor, the Pastor lied to you.Evolution has nothing to do with GOD. Many of us believe in GOD, are Christians, believe the Bible and still accept that Evolution is a FACT and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of how God Did It.If you like, I am happy to prove to you that Christianity has no problem accepting Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi, Oliver.I can't quite let the following comment go:

quote:

---

It is very easy and convenient to accept Evolution in a world that does not want a God....

---

As some will point out, many Christians also accept the theory of evolution; in fact, there are evangelical Christians who accept it. But, not being a Christian myself, I may not be the proper person to discuss this.More relevant to myself, I'm not sure why you think I don't want a god, but I assure you that even if the theory of evolution were proven false I would not believe in a god. I am an atheist, but my atheism in no way requires me to "believe" in the theory of evolution; they are separate issues for me. At any rate, long ago I started a thread titled Motivation for the non-belief in God; although that thread wasn't intended to deal with this particular question, if you want to discuss what evolution has to do with "a world that does not want a God," then that might be a better place to discuss it than here.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Hi allI googled Evolution is not Science and found this article. What are your opinions on this..Evolution is NOT Science
by David J. Stewart
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" -1st Timothy 6:20
I frequently receive e-mails from evolutionists who accuse me of being ignorant of science. The absurdity of their accusations rests in the FACT that evolution is NOT based upon science, but rather upon unproven speculations. "Science" means "to study." How can you study something that doesn't exist? How can you call evolution science if it cannot be studied? Evolution is a THEORY, not science. The reason why evolution is only a theory is simply because no one can prove that it ever happened.
If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.
Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.
God's creation is able to be studied, it is science. Evolution makes huge ASSUMPTIONS which cannot be studied. The only FACT which the evolutionists know for sure about the MISSING LINK is that it is STILL MISSING.

Did you also find this ?Page not foundAnd my opinion on the article you found is that the author has proved that he is ignorant of science.

Ok, I had a look at that site. As usual, micro-evolution was
cited which is perfectly acceptable but when hoaxes are
involved, alarm bells sound!!
I found this regarding archaeoptryx and as is the case with
other so called 'missing links' there is an explanation for
them all which is not in favour of the theory.Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax”it is a truebird, not a “missing link”
by Jonathan Sarfati, AiG-Australia
24 March 2000Also, Alan Fedducia, in his encyclopedic The Origin and
Evolution of Birds,3 cites a number of reasons why Fred Hoyle
is completely wrong. For example, limestone often contains
dendritic (tree-like) patterns formed by precipitating
manganese dioxide, and they are unique as are snowflakes. Some
of them are on both the slab and counterslab containing the
Solnhofen Archaeopteryx fossil, including some on top of the
feather imprints. Alan Charig et al. found that when he
backwardly printed a negative photograph of the counterslab
dendrite patterns, they match perfectly with the corresponding
dendrites of the main slab. Therefore the dendrites must have
formed on the bedding plane before the slab was split.
Since that book, more recent evidence has even further
devastated the hoax theory:
The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This
indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air
sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern
birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design
was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the
earliest bird.4 An evolutionist trying to forge a dinosaur with
feathers would not have thought to pneumatize allegedly
reptilian bones. Rather, the evidence supports the creationist
view that birds have always been birds.
Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning
shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird’s,
three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size
(although smaller than that of living birds). Archaeopteryx
even had large optic lobes to process the visual input needed
for flying. Furthermore, even the inner ear had a cochlea
length and semicircular canal propoprtions were in the range of
a modern flying bird’s. This implies that Archaeopteryx could
hear in a similar way, and also had the sense of balance
required for coordinating flight.5 Pterosaurs likewise had
similar brain structures for flight”the large optic lobes,
semicircular canals for balance, and huge floccular lobes,
probably for coordination of the head, eye and neck allowing
gaze-stabilization while flying.6 Once more, a forger adding
feathers to a dino would not have thought to make an avian
braincase, while it is yet another problem for evolutionists.

Science develops theories. It appears he is using theory as is commonly used in the public spectrum; as just an idea. Science uses a different definition. Sure, some of the food that the giraffe had eaten was from off of the ground, but think of the advantages of having a long reach with your neck?With a long neck the giraffe could reach an abundant source of food cut off from so many other organisms, food high up in the trees, in addition to being able to eat food from "off of the ground".Gotta run, heading to work.

quote:

---

Ok, I had a look at that site. As usual, micro-evolution was
cited which is perfectly acceptable but when hoaxes are
involved, alarm bells sound!!

---

But - as you admit - no hoax was cited.And simply arguing that archeopteryx is a 'true bird' does nothing to dispel it's status as a transitional. Any transitional would be classified as a dinosaur or a bird (or, more correctly, both).And Sarfati even cites the fact that archaeopteryx has a brain intermediate in size between dinosaurs and modern birds - how's that for evidence that it's transitional ?

Hi, Oliver.I looked at the quoted passage, and I have to admit to being not all that impressed with it. Long on assertian, short on either logical argumentation or factual evidence. For one thing, Mr. Stewart doesn't tell what these unproven speculations are. In fact, evolution is based not only on demostrable facts and their logical conclusions, but is supported by continued scientific investigations.- Actually, evolutionists do not claim any such thing. This is closer to Lamarck's theory of evolution (and a very minor part of his theory at that) which no one supports any more. Darwinian evolution is based on the observable facts about populations, variation within populations, and differential survival.- Again, as stated before, this indicates an ignorance of how these words are used in science. Evolution actually is tested and observed according to the way these words are used in science.- Actually, missing links are being discovered all the time.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

"Which both have bones, a central vertebrate nervous system, a closed
circulatory system, calciferous teeth, aerobic cellular metabolism, and generate amino acid polypeptides based on the same substitution codes."
But that doesn't prove millions of years of change, indicates a common designer."Well, we can observe the changes over millions of years; the fossil
record provides a static record of changes that have occured in the
past."
The fossil record is very incomplete. Why is it always assumed to be
over millions of years? It has to be stressed to make the theory look
plausible."Moreover, we can see it happen in the present, too; we make direct
observations of new species arising from old ones." Again this does not indicate macro-evolution or prove millions of years. Products of variation and adaptation."Untrue. Evolution is based on scientific evidence, not assumptions."
The whole idea is an assumption. I stick to real science..

In this case your beef isn't with evolutionary theory but with geology and physics since the geological observations are the origin of dates of millions of years for many fossils and the physics of radioactive decay the basis of the age estimates of others. These aren't derived based on the requirements of evolutionary theory.TTFN,WK

No, the fossil record proves about a billion years of change. Sure. Why wouldn't it be? Even an incomplete record is of use, though. It's not assumed; it's concluded from the evidence. I mean how else do you fuse a mineralized skeleton to the inside of an unbroken stone that's millions of years old? You have to form the stone around it. Which means that the skeleton has to be as least as old as the rock. What do you mean? How doesn't direct observation of macroevolution prove macroevolution? That's nonsensical. Are you saying that just because we see it happen now doesn't mean that it happened back then?Why not? What's so different about the past? All the other basic physical principles seem to have operated identically in the past. What evidence do you have to propose an exception in this case? Right. Which produce what you call "macroevolution." We've literally watched it happen right before our eyes. Clearly you don't know the first thing about what real science is.

In another (now closed thread), EODoc made the following comment: Since I typed this response during the closing, I wrote the following response (and invited him to this thread):Sure we can. We can, potentially, find lots of things that should disprove the theory of evolution. The fact that we haven't found any of the evidence that should have disproven evolution is a sign of its strength, not its weakness as a theory. Here is a webpage that describes the evidence that could have falsified evolution but didn't.My favorite one is the hierarchical classification of species. If common descent were true, we predict that we should see that we should be able to place the species on a hierarchical classification tree (which, of course, corresponds to the phylogenic relationships). If we didn't see such a hierarchical pattern, then evolution would be falsified. In fact, we do see such a classification.EODoc, you're welcome to continue this point here, on the thread "Why Evolution is science."

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Ok crashfog, please enlighten me with an example of macro-evolution that we see happening right before our eyes?