Primate embryos don’t have gills, but they do have pharyngeal arches which develop into the larynx (and other structures) in primates and into gills in fish. Amphibians do both.
Chimps are almost identical in structure to humans.
All of these details are relevant to different hypotheses related to the theory of evolution.
Organized religion and how you see God has NOTHING to do with the discussion.
And no I will not give it a rest and simply accept whatever God people want to push using the Bible.
ToE is a scientific theory and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with God – neither including God nor excluding God. But those who believe in God and accept evolution see this as affirming a God who chose love and freedom over power and control because it is Shepherd God of the Bible who participates in creation not as a controller or designer but in a relationship with living creatures who have a life of their own and make their own choices.
The same way the law of gravity and momentum reflects a God like this (no matter how many people die because of them). They define the realities by which living organisms can exist, learn, and make their own choices.
That’s exactly what you did when you said there was no evidence for speciation.
This is an open on-line forum. We are outside the scientific environment.
Speciation may e inherent to ToE but there is little or no proof that the process can actually achieve it. The evolutionary process adapts or modifies existing characteristics but it has yet to show any major change that would denote speciation. Most of the evidence is corroborative rather than specific and would include all the adaptive evidence.
So I did not say what you claim, you are making an assumption (what a surprise)
Richard
Speciation is inherent to reality. We observe it happening.
We also have tons of evidence that evolution can achieve speciation.
No major changes are needed for speciation.
What does that even mean?
Then you are changing the goal posts.
The whole crit of ToE is thr scope of the changes, so if you do not need a maor change to speciate then it is basically irrelevant.
Still, that is all i expect. It seems that proponants of ToE cannotfacr this crit and just keep claiming it must have happened. Brilliant.
Speciation is a process within evolution that leads to the formation of new, distinct species that are reproductively isolated from one another.(Biology dictionary.net)
So if you are going to claim that those flies are a new species, it is only a technical change. They are still basically the same flies, just genetically isolated. More Scientific jiggerypokery.
I wonder if there is a similar / comparable term for changing classes?
And if so, have you any visual or modern evidence that such a thing can be done using the evolutionary process?
Now that might be compelling
Richard
Edit, I couldn’t let this pass
Corroborate
to add proof to an account, statement, idea, etc. with new information:
Within the legal system it is side evidence that supports a conclusion but not enough on its own to prove it. IOW it is not empiracal but secondary.
So, I am basically saying that the DNA stuff does not prove, on its own, that ToE works. It just indicates that the connection might be there. You still need to prove that the evolutionary pprocess can bridge the links that DNA might indiicate.
IOW you still have to show that the evolutionary process can do more than adapt or refine. It has to be able to create, be functional limbs, wings, liver, womb, etc, etc, etc.
And that is where we always end up
For that to be true you would need to find a quote from me where I claimed speciation requires major changes. Do you have that quote?
Ok the, let’s use your criteria.
There is the major change you are asking for. That is a speciation event, and according to you this requires a major change, so there is your major change.
Classes don’t exist in nature. Those are man made categories. The only objective category that exists in nature is species, and even then there is often a hazy line between species due to evolutionary mechanisms.
You mean like a species with the skeleton of a dinosaur that also has feathers?
No theories are ever proven, so not a problem.
Also, I would strongly suggest you look up the definition of empirical. Your usage indicates you may be mistaken on what it means.
Theories aren’t proven in science, so not a problem.
Limbs, wings, livers, and wombs are all adaptations and refinements.
You said exactly what I claimed you said.
Feel free to try to explain your way out of this.
Added: Your best strategy may be to admit you don’t actually know what speciation is, and really meant something else. It won’t work though.
I think you guys may be just talking past one another. No major changes are seen from generation to generation, but minor changes over long periods have an additive effect and ultimately become major. That time in closely related species may be measured over a few million years, but then in species more distantly related, usually are measured in the hundreds of million years. All minor changes.
The point is that an artificial delineation like sexual compatibility is irrelevant. A finely tuned balance will tip with just one grain. Minor changes mean a slow stepped change. So we end up at:
Irreducible, complex, or gap, each of which are denied by scientists.
Further more, posturing about proving is just blindsiding. Whether proven or not ToE is taken as fact.
IOW you do not need it to be proven to assert it as true… Brilliant.
Richard
Edit.
That should be evolutionary scientists.
No he’s not, he’s stating a fact. Speciation is about the accumulation of tiny changes – period.
The Theory of Evolution is, yes, a scientific theory. Just as the Theory of Flight is a theory, or the Theory of Tides, or the Theory of Computation. But evolution, like flight, tides or computation, is something that happens, something that can be observed to go on and be measured, etc.
But God is not observable or measurable and thus has no part in any scientific theory. And so none of these scientific theories you mention have anything to do with God either. It is strange how people single out this one theory of evolution in this way to complain that God has no part in it.
Perhaps you are thinking of the common confusion of “theory” with “hypothesis,” and thus the idea that a theory cannot be a fact or something which is known. An hypothesis is something we test to see if it is true. Saying something is a theory just means it offers explanations for a wide range of phenomena like with an equation by which you can calculate what will happen over a range of different values for its measured parameters. Something becomes scientific fact when it used as a routine tool in scientific inquiry, which is the case for many many scientific theories including evolution.
Evolution is something that happens, just as flight (or Tides or computation, or ...P is something that haapens. Evolution is the change in inheritable properties of a populatin over generations. It is observed to happen in populations of living things in the wild, or under controlled conditions in the lab. Natural selection is the famous principle introduced by Garwin's Theory of Evolution. There are other theories of evolution, such as sexual selection, neutral Theory (Kimura), endosymbiosis (Margulis), inheritance of acquired traits (Lamarck), ...Sorry for the mistakes
Evolution is something that happens, just as flight (or tides, or computation, or …}. Evolution is the change in inheritable characteristics of a population of living things. It is observed to happen in the wild (whenever or whenever we took for it) or under controlled conditions In the lab. There are many theories of evolution, such as Darwin’s natural selection Theory, or Kiura’s neutral Theory, or Margulis’ endosymbiosis, Lamark’s inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Right. Being a theory has nothing to do with whether it is an hypothesis or a fact. So… some of those theories are failed hypotheses and some are scientific fact. Some are hypotheses waiting for test and some experience a revival as we find that not all things in life are so black and white.
That is an exageration, or at least, relies on a specific aspect of Evolution. The process is observable ( at least in part), but we cannot observe part examples of it in real time, all we can do is see examples of life and postulate any connections between them.
Then you do not care what the Bible says about creation.
People, liile me, find it important that understandings that impinge on God, include him. The fact that you seem unwilling to see that the Bible claims not only God’s part in creation but also sovereignty, is not really my fault, but…
In truth, evolution is not the hot bed that this forum (et al) make it out to be. The maority of people would seem to just accept it without rationalising how that might impinge on there faith (if they have one) or not. It is taken as true because that is how it is presented.
The promotion of science and its theories is not viewed the same way as the promotion of religious views. if it was, things might be a little different.
Richard
Of course, we don’t see every instance of evolution. We don’t see every instance of flight, or birth, etc. Evolution is an observable, we can see it occurring directly and, just like other things in nature, where we are prevented from seeing it directly, we see its effects.
As far as what the Bible has to say - there is noting in the Bible about evolution, the language of the day didn’t have the capability of saying anything about evolution. It would be anachronistic for it to say anything about evolution. The Bible has all the appearances of being produced in, for an audience of, Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Cultures.
Thus, for example, it does not question the ANE concept of the celestial objects being different from terrestrial objects, and thereby, geocentrism. It does not accept modern theories of economics, which understand interest on debt. It does not have the concepts of modern taxonomy - species, genera, … to be able to say anything about their origins — or extintions! (As recently as the 19th century, extinction was considered to be contrary to the creative poweer of God.)
But nothing on the scale necessary to complete ToE.
It always goes back to the scope of change. And always it comes up short.
I am not arguing Genesis. Why don’t you people see that? I am not arguing YEC. I am not argung instant creation. I am not even denying the existence of evolution! Get it straight!
The argument is still twofold
The evolutionary process is not capable of achieving 1 cell to human
Natural selection does not reflect the nature of God
Richard
The change from one living cell to organized multicell organisms is supposed to have taken a very long time but with sufficient time, it would also be possible.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.