Has Evolution Been Evolving?

[Romani Capatorum]

(I used this material from another website legily as it is not copyrighted)

Has evolution been evolving? Modern science says "YES!" Since the birth of evolution theory in the 1800s, evolutionists have been struggling to find a mechanism that can actually cause evolution. Where has this journey taken them? Take a look for yourself and you will see that from the beginning, evolution has been evolving, and it has still not improved.

Five major theories have been proposed as the mechanism for evolution; however, they do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense! Take a minute to examine these for yourself.
Lamarckism - Lamarckism is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. Lamarckism proposed that the effect of individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms was the main mechanism driving species to adaptation. As a species would acquire adaptive changes, they would pass them on to offspring causing evolution. Today's understanding of science has left Lamarckism without a leg to stand on.
Classical Darwinism (Natural Selection) - The term Darwinism (in the classical sense) refers to the concept that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism. This theory was popularized by the publication of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin had proposed that species evolved by merely being the fittest-and thus his "survival of the fittest" axiom. Those species most fit for their environment would survive longer and pass along their genes through reproduction. However, in the mid-twentieth century, scientists realized that natural selection alone could not cause evolution. More radical changes needed to be made, and on a much faster timescale.
Neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Mutations) - In modern times, the term neo-Darwinism refers to the addition of mutation to the theory of classical Darwinism (natural selection). Following the development in the 1940s of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian has been used by some to refer to the modern evolutionary theory that mutations are the driving force of evolution. This idea comes to a halt when science demonstrates that mutations are not frequent or beneficial. That is to say when mutations do happen, they do not produce something new-they just scramble existing information.
Hopeful Monster - This term is used in evolutionary biology to describe evolution as taking place in a single bound. It says that maybe one day a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched out. The problem now is: who would the new bird mate with? This kind of event would surely be rare, and the chances of that happening twice, at the same time, in the same place, with animals that are the same species, that are of the opposite sex, that are able to reproduce, are .... Well, let's just say, "It ain't happening!" The phrase was coined by the German-born geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, and that rapid evolution events were necessary to explain the lack of transitional fossils. This argument is an attempt to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
Punctuated Equilibrium - In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed this idea in a paper that built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation. Eldredge and Gould noticed that evidence of slow gradual changes by means of natural selection championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that, rather than gradual evolution through minor changes, punctuated equilibrium better explained the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium stated that major changes did take place, but over relatively short periods of geologic time (10 to 20 thousand years as opposed to millions). This theory is just as ridiculous as the others, as it attempts to argue from the lack of evidence. "Since we don't have the evidence in the fossil record, this proves evolution happened quickly."
Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind!
No, "macro" evolution is not happening, but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next?

[Copperknickers II]

Interestingly enough, both 'Hopeful Monster' and Larmarckism have elements of truth in modern evolutionary theory that are just now coming to light.

Noone is pretending that we know everything about evolution, we may never know everything. I don't really see your point, tbh - all scientific theories evolve with new discoveries.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh good, another thread about evolution by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution.

[Playfishpaste]

None of those are what modern evolutionary theory is.

Nor were any of them ever accepted by the majority of science with the exception of "Neo-darwinism", which is not a different theory from darwinism at all, because it proposes no contradiction about it.

[Evolution]

No I can tell you right now that I have not been evolving. But I take it as a compliment

Evolution is just mutant genes which were able to survive the difficult tasks that race faced.

[Phier]

Darwin had proposed that species evolved by merely being the fittest-and thus his "survival of the fittest" axiom.

The term was coined by Herbert Spenser. Darwin didn't care for it, but it became so accepted that he used it in much later additions of his Origin of the Species.

I don't get the point of this thread though, is there one? The process of evolution is pretty established at this point. Like all scientific theories there may be refinements but there wont' be any paradigm shifts.

[Pious Agnost]

It's got to evolve to fit in with discoveries.

Nothing case-breaking, just science

[Dayman]

Theories change over time.

That's what science does. They don't write something down 2000 years ago and claim that's immutable fact in the face of all contrary evidence.

[Rich86]

It's a complete waste of time to even attempt to discuss evolution with these people (from my experience) - normally they've been told it's false and they've decided that is their stance come what may.

Pointing out that scientific theories changing over time, and that being prepared to admit mistakes rather than pretending there are no mistakes is actually a good thing is normally futile.

[Francebunkerer]

It's actually from Kent Hovind's site.
http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=133

[Dayman]

Awesome.

How is Kent doing in federal prison?

[Markas]

Awesome.

How is Kent doing in federal prison?

Digging a tunnel with the help of a rock hammer and a poster of Jesus Christ in a fur bikini.

[Tankbuster]

Before anyone actually thinks that he has a point:

(I used this material from another website legily as it is not copyrighted)

Has evolution been evolving? Modern science says "YES!" Since the birth of evolution theory in the 1800s, evolutionists have been struggling to find a mechanism that can actually cause evolution. Where has this journey taken them? Take a look for yourself and you will see that from the beginning, evolution has been evolving, and it has still not improved.

The theory of evolution has added many new evolutionairy mechanisms over time, due to the fact that, unlike some other ideas I could name, evolution is actually tested; and because our understanding of it increases, we perfect the theory over time. The original principles still stand, and improvement has denitely been made.

Five major theories have been proposed as the mechanism for evolution; however, they do not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense! Take a minute to examine these for yourself.

Let's.

Lamarckism - Lamarckism is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. Lamarckism proposed that the effect of individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms was the main mechanism driving species to adaptation. As a species would acquire adaptive changes, they would pass them on to offspring causing evolution. Today's understanding of science has left Lamarckism without a leg to stand on.

Surprisingly, the description is actually sound. Lamarckism only barely stood up to the first wave of scientific experiments; after that it was swept off the academic arena.

Classical Darwinism (Natural Selection) - The term Darwinism (in the classical sense) refers to the concept that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism. This theory was popularized by the publication of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century. Darwin had proposed that species evolved by merely being the fittest-and thus his "survival of the fittest" axiom. Those species most fit for their environment would survive longer and pass along their genes through reproduction. However, in the mid-twentieth century, scientists realized that natural selection alone could not cause evolution. More radical changes needed to be made, and on a much faster timescale.

Voilà, as you say yourself: "natural selection ALONE" could not cause evolution. Due to our advanced understanding of nature, we were able to discern new mechanisms.

Neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Mutations) - In modern times, the term neo-Darwinism refers to the addition of mutation to the theory of classical Darwinism (natural selection). Following the development in the 1940s of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian has been used by some to refer to the modern evolutionary theory that mutations are the driving force of evolution. This idea comes to a halt when science demonstrates that mutations are not frequent or beneficial. That is to say when mutations do happen, they do not produce something new-they just scramble existing information.

We've found that mutations are the mechanism through which evolution takes place. "Random mutation followed by subsequent natural selection" is a good description for the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, this theory has not been 'halted' in the slightest.
1) 'Science demonstrates that mutations are not frequent' - Science has demonstrated that every human organism has about 120 new mutations.
2) 'Science demonstrates that mutations are not beneficial' - In reality, science has demonstrated that while most mutations are neutral, some of them are beneficial; and neutral mutations can be the 'basis' for later beneficial mutations.
3) 'Mutations do not produce new information' - Mutations change the bases adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine and make new combinations of these existing bases. These new combinations were not present in the genome before, and thus, can only be considered new.

Hopeful Monster - This term is used in evolutionary biology to describe evolution as taking place in a single bound. It says that maybe one day a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched out. The problem now is: who would the new bird mate with? This kind of event would surely be rare, and the chances of that happening twice, at the same time, in the same place, with animals that are the same species, that are of the opposite sex, that are able to reproduce, are .... Well, let's just say, "It ain't happening!" The phrase was coined by the German-born geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge the gap between microevolution and macroevolution, and that rapid evolution events were necessary to explain the lack of transitional fossils. This argument is an attempt to explain away the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Eh... no, this is a strawman created by creationists, based entirely on their lack of understanding of what evolution actually is. But I must congratulate Hovind on making the most uninformed and pathetic strawman of evolution I have seen to this day.
In reality, there is no 'lack of transitional fossils'. Not even close; in fact we have so many of them, that we can't even decide how to classify some of them.

Punctuated Equilibrium - In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed this idea in a paper that built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation. Eldredge and Gould noticed that evidence of slow gradual changes by means of natural selection championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that, rather than gradual evolution through minor changes, punctuated equilibrium better explained the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium stated that major changes did take place, but over relatively short periods of geologic time (10 to 20 thousand years as opposed to millions). This theory is just as ridiculous as the others, as it attempts to argue from the lack of evidence. "Since we don't have the evidence in the fossil record, this proves evolution happened quickly."

I understand all the words in this description, but put in that order, I can't make anything out of it. Actually reading some Stephen Jay Gould would be the fastest way to fix this defect.

Scientific evidence has far surpassed the theories of those who believe evolution has taken place and has instead reinforced what the Bible tells us in Genesis 1:25: the animals bring forth after their kind!

*gasps that the OP came to this totally unexpected conclusion*
Too bad it's completely wrong, on both accounts.

No, "macro" evolution is not happening, but the religious theory of evolution continues to evolve! What will they come up with next?

1) We have plenty of evidence of macro-evolution.
2) Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious one.
3) If we find out that there are more mechanisms in evolution than we originally thought, then we will indeed make changes.

Thanks for playing.

[Watchman]

That seems to about cover it. Mad props.

/thread ?

[Tigrul]

/thread ?

That would be so nice! But it rarely happens that way. Young Earth creationists are probably amongst the most biased of people. You can present all of the evidence you wish and they simply won't have any of it, because their magic book written by frustrated idiots millenia ago says otherwise. Tank's effort is appreciated, but rather a waste of his time, unfortunately.

One of my work colleagues is an anti-evolution creationist. He's a very smart person, and I really mean it, he's very smart, but he just won't hear anything about the proof for the theory of evolution. His bible tells him otherwise and he just won't care about all of the evidence against his stance.

It's not a matter of intelligence here. It's a matter of how much they've been indoctrinated since childhood and how capable they are of opening their minds to reality. Often times, they already have their conclusions. No science, no matter how good, can convince them otherwise, and any chain of ideas, no matter how flawed, will suffice to them, so long as it supports their bias.

[Phier]

That would be so nice! But it rarely happens that way. Young Earth creationists are probably amongst the most biased of people. You can present all of the evidence you wish and they simply won't have any of it..

So kinda like socialists?

[Watchman]

No, that's Stalinists. No self-respecting mainstream Leftist is willing to touch that lot with an eleven-foot pole so as to not contract their AIDS and fail.

[Tigrul]

So kinda like socialists?

I don't think socialists are even remotely close to that degree of bias. And there even is SOME economical basis for their ideas, although I think it's safer to plan a strong economy and social benefits to be a good "side effect" of that economy, than it is to plan for an economy which is aimed at the social side. But anyway... we weren't discussing politics and economical politics here.

Just in case you had the idea that I were a socialist and thought to at it, I'll let you know that I'm a very liberal person from a social and political perspective and a quite liberal person from an economical perspective. So I'm not a socialist. Your whistling lead me to believe that you thought otherwise.

[ShADoW]

Is Theistic Evolution considered 'evolving'?

[Tankbuster]

Tank's effort is appreciated, but rather a waste of his time, unfortunately..

Just sharpening my sceptical blade on some creationist 'arguments' *sharp sharp*

Is Theistic Evolution considered 'evolving'?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean...
If you're asking whether theistic evolution is considered to be congruent with evolution, then the answer is yes. Evolution is the explanation of how life forms evolved and complexified when they were already there. It does not make any claims on how this life first got there (that would be abiogenesis), and it does not say that there is not a divine hand guiding the process.
In other words, the two are compatible. All I can say is that everything words without that hypothesis.