@Alypius That phrase seems to mean different things in different contexts. Some of its meanings are obviously true; others are highly contentious.

In general, no.

@Alypius Obviously, none I have seen is convincing. For me the fossil record must be convincing or I see no reason to count TOE as fact.

Excellent link here: thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm

Darwin said:

"All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record."

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."

Where are all the fossils? ^^^

"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."

I think I made my point. Never mind anything else. If the fossil record cannot satisfactorily show evidence for TOE then it should be abandoned.

SO I ASK EVERYONE HERE AGAIN:

@El'endiaStarman and @Jas3.1 I posted the following a bit ago. @BruceAlderman took exception So read the following as well. It's clear that Jas and I are on the same page concerning this. Bruce has already said his bit. El'endia?

@fredsbend Hmmm. Not quite the way I'd put it. The Theory of Evolution deals with the development of life from the first cells (Archaea and Prokaryotes) to the vast array of flora and fauna we see today. (Thus, origin of species, not origin of life.) The mechanism responsible is evolution. | Agreed, there is no conflict between Creationism and evolution, though there is one between Creationism and Evolution.

@El'endiaStarman Okay. Yes, what I meant by using the word origins was species, not life itself. Bruce didn't agree at all. See the back log. Jas basically said the same thing a day or two ago.

But what about fossils?

Like I've said, the evidence for Evolution that I base my belief on most does not include fossils. Thus, I don't know enough to engage you over the subject.

@fredsbend Yes, exactly. But the question is, what would you say would ever make it convincing? Is there anything that could ever be shown to you that would change your mind?

@Alypius Yes. Abundance of fossils. They find "link" species that typically look more like one or the other that it supposedly links, and the real kicker is that they only find a few skeletons here and there and call it an entire species. Sometimes they only find a single bone!

If there were thousands of fossils of various links and the parents and children, enough to clearly demonstrate that they were unique species that existed, and we can clearly see the relationships. Yes. That surely would be convincing. There are literally millions of fossils on shelves around the world and still no such evidence exists. They have enough trouble showing it for a single species. Never mind the many thousands that we have.

@El'endiaStarman Isn't the fossil record the next step from whatever it is that convinced you? Shouldn't the fossil record support TOE?

@fredsbend The Theory of Evolution shouldn't rest on the fossil record, but it should explain the fossil record, if that makes sense.

Also, you shouldn't rule out the Theory of Evolution just because there isn't an abundance of link fossils. When Mendeleev came up with his idea of a periodic table that put similar elements in the same column, there were several gaps where there should be an element. Every single element was discovered and shown to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. It just took time and technology. Similarly, we've not dug up every fossil, so if the Theory is wrong, somehow, then it is not yet wrong.

@El'endiaStarman You're kidding right? You are basically saying that TOE cannot be wrong, therefore, the fossil record is explained by TOE. The correct order of things is that TOE is explained by the fossil record. The TOE was made. It is a theory on what has happened in the past. Certain sciences support it. We are still hasty to call it fact at this point. Fossils are the only thing that can actually support or dismantle the theory.

@El'endiaStarman We have dug up millions of fossils in the last hundred years. How many do you want?

@fredsbend ...uh, genetics? The Theory of Evolution should rest on genetics, not fossils.

@fredsbend Limestone is all fossils. The number is not the important part.

(By the way, the reason I'm not using 'TOE' is because that means "Theory of Everything" in physics.)

@El'endiaStarman No. The biological process of evolution can be well understood by genetics. The TOE concerns what has happened. Therefore, evidence of what has actually happened (fossils) is quite germane to the issue. You would not use this same logic to say that Jesus existed. Why should Evolution get this distinction?

@El'endiaStarman I know. But it is quick and this chat is titled "Creation Vs ..." I think people will get the right idea.

I usually prefer "Evolution" for the Theory of Evolution and "evolution" for the biological process of evolution.

@fredsbend Yeah, but remember I have more of an inclination towards physics than any of the other hard sciences, such as biology here (though I am not ignorant in it).

@fredsbend Then I shall use that convention.

@El'endiaStarman ok. I will as well.

@fredsbend Funny, this point was argued to me a while back, and now I'm arguing it in turn. The only real distinction between evolution and Evolution is the amount of time involved. We know of the mechanisms (adaptation, genetic drift, etc.) that allow evolution to produce new species, which is a major component of Evolution. The Theory is logically, mathematically, and biologically sound, AND it's supported by fossil evidence. Yes, there are gaps, but that doesn't mean the Theory is wrong.

@fredsbend A single bone can easily be evidence for a previously-unknown species. Just extract DNA, sequence it, and then check against all the other known species with sequenced genomes. The search can be narrowed beforehand by things like the size of the bone, the type of bone, its shape, etc.

@El'endiaStarman "AND it's supported by fossil evidence." I beg to differ. "The only real distinction between evolution and Evolution is the amount of time involved." This is also wrong. I put some bacteria in a petri dish, manipulate the environment and wait a few weeks, and observe that the bacteria have evolved. I do this for a million years and I still have observed the bacteria evolve.

Rewind back to the first observation (where we are currently) and I say, based on this evolution I have observed, I propose that the Evolution of this bacteria was xyz. I have just made an hypothesis, based on observations, that concerns what has happened in the past, something we have no record for, save fossils. It is now my duty to see if the fossils support it (though I don't know if bacteria make fossils or not).

@El'endiaStarman Fossils are typically devoid of any organic material.

@fredsbend Wow, what a blunder on my part. So then, size, shape, geological strata, surrounding fossils, etc...

One key thing to note about Evolution is that the evolution of one species from its ancestor doesn't necessarily mean the ancestor is extinct. Thus, some of the bacteria we have today would've been around as a species as a million years ago. Same goes for Archaea and Prokaryotes. Thus, though there may not be any bacteria fossils whatsoever, that, again, doesn't doom Evolution. I think we're in agreement on that.

@El'endiaStarman A single bone might identify a new species, if that bone is unique enough from what we already know. I still think it is dangerous waters to be treading in if you start saying you found a new species based off a single bone. Piltdown Man, anybody?

@fredsbend According to Evolution, put some bacteria in a world, fast forward 3 billion years, and you will find that the bacteria has evolved and Evolved. Evolution in the sense of huge changes beyond species differentiation can't happen in a short time span (geologically), and this does not prevent evolution from working over the same long time span. So yes, the main difference is length of time.

@El'endiaStarman I'm not too interested in bacteria. Yes, Evolution does not mean extinctions have occurred, though they would not be extinctions, per se.

> The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species

If Evolution happens and the last of the ancestor's species dies, then yes, extinction has occurred.

@El'endiaStarman No. They main difference is fact vs. historical theory. You have no hope of making fact out of history. In your example, if you watched for all three billion years it is still evolution, fact, because you know it and have recorded it, assuming you were honest and reliable in your recording.

@fredsbend ...hold on a moment, are we squabbling about the definition of a word? Let's settle this a different way then...

@El'endiaStarman This would be typical of the bottle neck kind of evolution. Environment changes quickly, and there is a massive die off. Adaptations are made. There is another change then the next die off includes the last parent. Extinction has occurred.

Conversely, a wide spread species ventures into many environments and experiences local die offs, but the species still thrives else where. This would be the fork kind of evolution.

> theory of evolution: (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

@El'endiaStarman Yes. We have merely chosen to capitalize it: "Theory of Evolution."

Except I would not use the word scientific.

@fredsbend For convenience, aye. My point is that it's "a scientific theory".

By nature it cannot be ...

Ha. :P

@fredsbend Scientific means falsifiable. Not exactly the same thing.

@El'endiaStarman And those theories are separated from the Theory of Gravity. They are not called the same thing.

@El'endiaStarman This issue still persists.

I would say it means both ... You have to test to falsify.

@fredsbend Creationism is much worse off. You can't falsify the claim that God made the world (with light etc in motion).

@fredsbend Not necessarily. Well, depends on what you mean by "test". If conclusive and undisputable evidence is uncovered that disproves Evolution, then the Theory has been falsified without a test.

@El'endiaStarman So. I never tried to call Creationism science. The Evolutionist will tell the Creationist that you cannot prove the non-existence of something: God. The Creationist will tell the Evolutionist that you cannot prove the non-existence of something: missing links, etc.

@fredsbend Also, falsifiable predictions of Evolution that have come true.

@El'endiaStarman It cannot be done. You cannot "disprove" any account of history. You can discredit it, however.

@fredsbend Not necessarily historical. It could be falsified in modern times.

@fredsbend One has objective standards for verification, the other does not. And you're picking one to determine what is true. ... I'mma go with the one that has objective standards.

@El'endiaStarman Sorry. Same old stuff I have seen again and again. If any of those didn't happen they simply adjust the Theory. There is never a point where any logical mind must say "Oh, well, that's bogus."

I must get some sleep now.

So tired ... but ... I must ... prove ... you ... wrong ... [snores]

Good Night. Still waiting for that fossil example ;)

To our mutual loss of sleep in proving one another wrong! [raises glass]

@fredsbend So you're telling us in advance that you're not actually interested in the strongest evidence for the theory: you don't want to know about it or think about it. Nice.

Lots of activity here while I was away.

@fredsbend Asking for a single fossil that supports evolution is a category mistake. A fossil is a snapshot in time, whereas evolution is change over generations.

We can't derive evolution from a single fossil; however, the fossil record as a whole does show evidence of great changes over time in the life forms inhabiting this planet.

Many fossils simply do not resemble any animals currently living. And the further back in time we go, the greater the differences are--both in terms of different species existing, and different types of species predominating.

@Jas3.1 Evolution by natural selection by no means statistically impossible. It is grounded in Thomas Malthus' population studies in the late 18th century.

Both Darwin and Alfred Wallace realized that any population, not just humans, produced more offspring than necessary for the species' survival. Many species, in fact, produce far more offspring than can survive.

The ones best suited for their environments are more likely to survive and produce the next generation--which should be better suited to that environment.

But if the environment changes, what was formerly a strength might become a weakness. Then we're likely to see a mass extinction.

Evolution by natural selection explains the patterns we see in the fossil record. No other hypothesis combines such explanatory power with such simplicity.

@fredsbend "All the evidence we have of the history of organic evolution is provided by the fossil record." Keep in mind that Darwin wrote those words long before Mendel's genetic studies were ever published.

The modern evolutionary synthesis draws heavily on genetic research, as well as cladistic studies and more recently, DNA sequencing.

@Jas3.1 If you want actual science, this video is better. It actually includes stratification experiments. Flooding doesn't produce stratification--it actually blends sediments into a single layer. Depositing the layers separately in an existing bed of water, on the other hand, can produce layers like we see in the actual earth.

@Jas3.1 And the end section of the video you linked, describing horizontal layers, is an extreme example of a phenomenon well known to geologists as folding. The causes and mechanisms of folding are well understood by mainstream geologists.

@TRiG You have a way of putting words in people's mouths ... I'm sure you read the back log. Do that if you haven't.

@BruceAlderman Yet, a single fossil is commonly pointed to as evidence ... I already complained about that problem. Then I said this is what should be occurring in the fossil record if Evolution were fact:

@BruceAlderman At least someone is saying something about fossils. Okay. Show me how you think the fossil record is supporting Evolution.

@BruceAlderman I'm afraid genetics cannot prove what has happened in the past.

@fredsbend I already did. See the section above beginning with "Many fossils simply do not resemble..." and ending with "...combines such explanatory power with such simplicity."

@fredsbend What does "prove" mean? In the context of science, it is a meaningless term.

@fredsbend To be more specific about how fossils support evolution: Evolution means gradual change over time. Many fossils are from species that no longer exist. This indicates that life in this planet's past was different from what we see today. Something has changed over time. That's the essence of evolution.

@BruceAlderman Your argument is basically: "A lot of fossils are of extinct species so that is evidence." Kind of weak.

@BruceAlderman The only thing we can conclude without being hasty is that many species have gone extinct.

@fredsbend I think we are using the terms differently. I don't even know how to proceed from here. Extinction is, by definition, a driver of evolution. When a species goes extinct, it changes the environment for the all the surviving species.

@BruceAlderman No need to split hairs and change the subject. You are saying that the fact that we have dinosaur fossils is evidence itself that Evolution occurred. I'm afraid not. It is only evidence that the Earth once had dinosaurs on it.

@fredsbend If the earth once had dinosaurs, and now does not, how is that not evolution? Isn't a dinosaur-dominated environment functionally different from a dinosaour-free one?

@BruceAlderman I do not argue your point that extinction can drive evolution. I argue your point that apparent mass extinctions in the past is evidence of Evolution. I have already told you that evolution is clearly fact, but is science not history. Evolution (big E) is clearly history and not science, although based on the science of evolution. But you reject my distinction.

When science starts supposing what has happened instead of what is it stops being science and starts being something else.

Answer this: Should the fossil record support Evolution? I know you will say yes. Now answer this: If the fossil record does not adequately support Evolution what does that mean for the theory?

@fredsbend If the fossil record showed rabbits in the Precambrian (as @TRiG has already alluded to), we'd have to look for a different explanation for the fossil record.

The business of science concerns only what is. "What is" is measurable, testable, and falsifiable. "What was" is none of those. "What was" is not measurable with any certainty, testable without reliable records, falsifiable without trustworthy witness. This is exactly the distinction between history and and science. Science wants to know what is. History wants to know what was.

@fredsbend You and I have different understandings about what science is. Science wants to know not just what is, but how it got that way.

I have a meeting to go to, so I'll have to continue this later.

@BruceAlderman And that is a lame straw man. Him an Alypius went on to say that Evolution would be far from invalidated. It would simply be adjusted, as it has been countless times.

@BruceAlderman Science does not necessarily say: "How did gravity get that way?"

In fact, scientists commonly do something quite different. They use what is well known about gravity to make suppositions about where celestial bodies have been. It seems scientific at first, but there are inherent issues with that. The first being that we cannot falsify any such theory unless we first falsify the Theory of Gravity.

We also have to assume things were always they way they are now. And it's not falsifying, per se, as much as it is using new science to refine the already established historical theories.

If we were to do this with intellectual honesty we would have to say that there is 99,99% likelihood that the body was at point xyz a year ago. There is 98% likelihood that it was at point xyz two years ago. And so on.

With Evolution we at least have the fossils that can give testimony to the theory. But do they is my question?

@BruceAlderman How about "God made it"? That's pretty simple and explanatory.

@BruceAlderman Creationists do not reject the idea of natural selection. That is a serious misunderstanding of our position.

@BruceAlderman I can tell you didn't bother watching the whole thing. It was actual science, it included stratification experiments, and it answered your misconception.

@BruceAlderman Nice try. Moving water + sediment -> stratification. This mechanism was discovered in a lab, tested, and proven. That is how science works. You are welcome to continue to rely on people's imaginations, but please stop calling it science.

@fredsbend I don't think you understand. Scientists "predicted" that there would be fossils that looked like they were between two "species" on the basis of the theory of evolution, and this turned out to be true. Repeatedly. You're imagining that we have to have to find a complete "photographic" record of change in the fossils, but that is neither possible nor required.

@Alypius I am quite familiar with the claim. My invitation is for you to show me the fossils. Show me how the fossil record that we have now adequately supports Evolution. I am under no illusion that we must have a complete photographic record of the changes. You are convinced with what we have. Show me why.

@Jas3.1 ...this message and the next sound like you're speaking for Bruce and against yourself. I watched both videos, and the one Bruce linked had someone actually doing something.

@BruceAlderman "stratification--it actually blends sediments into a single layer." Tell that to the fish in my aquarium. No matter how hard I try the rocks always seem to settle to the bottom and the sand stays on top. FWIW.

@Jas3.1 "God made it" is not a hypothesis; it is a faith statement. "God made it using natural selection as a mechanism" is not an inherently contradictory statement.

@Jas3.1 If you don't reject natural selection, what do you reject? If Darwinian theory postulates evolution by natural selection, and you don't reject natural selection, what is your objection to Darwinian evolution?

@fredsbend That's not an example of flooding. You didn't pour the rocks and sand into the aquarium and only then pour in the water.

And it's not an example of stratification either. Stratification is layering of sedimentary and igneous rocks--by rock type not by weight.

@BruceAlderman Actually, I did when I first filled it up. The sand went everywhere and the rocks stayed put. The rocks then went to the bottom and the sand settled on top. It is still the same thing. Water easily pushes light weight particles and not so easily heavy particles. It is a bit like erosion but under water.

@BruceAlderman Saying igneous rocks create layers is a little silly. Of course they do. A lava flow put them there. Rain and ocean waves eroded them to sand and smaller rocks. Hawaii islands are a perfect example of this.

Different types weigh differently ...

@fredsbend But igneous rocks don't create layers in your fish bowl. And what we see in nature is not consistently heavier matter on the bottom and lighter on the top, but repeating patterns.

A cambrian shale and a triassic shale will have several other layers of sandstone, limestone, chalk, and other rocks in between. But it's not the case that cambrian shale is heavier everything above it.

@BruceAlderman Yes. Like Hawaii. Sand on top of lava on top of sand, and so on. Eventually, though, we get to what is called bed rock. Mostly solid stuff that continues for many thousands of feet. Just ask miners.

Just small little pockets of goodies like gold, etc.

@BruceAlderman Do you have a real life example where Cambrian shale is in the same location as Triassic shale, just beneath it?

Or different periods? Doesn't have to be Cambrian and Triassic

@fredsbend I'm a neutral party in the whole "fossil" debate. For any bit of fossil evidence, there is a Google search and a swarm of pseudoscientific sites that will "attack" that bit of fossil evidence. You ask for some bit of evidence, but what is the objective of anyone providing one? If it's not to convince you, then it must be to get your feedback on why it is wrong... but you are no authority at all (same goes for the rest of us), so there's no point there, it seems.

@Alypius I suppose we will just freeze this chat room then and move on ... you know, since none of us are experts and I openly am inviting debate. Oh wait. That's what this room was created for.

See my profile. I am very much willing to become a Theistic Evolutionist, if I thought the evidence were convincing.

I do plan to refute what you might show. But if you stump me I will admit it.

@fredsbend Yes, but, again, what would you find convincing. For example: the fossils would need to be this similar, and over this span of time, and there would need to be this many.

Moore’s Law and the Origin of Life

@Alypius I thought I already said this:

@Alypius This is interesting. That is on origins though. How did they come up with the doubling factor, though? Every 376 million years?

@fredsbend I do not know. I just got the link and thought it was relevant, which it is, because it suggests that evolution posits a long-ago date of the hypothetical first ancestor.

@Alypius I suppose. I have trouble with the hypothesis though because they just plainly state like fact that diversity of life doubles every 376 million years. I don't see how they can say such a thing with any certainty. We have been observing evolution for about 150 years. That is roughly 1 over 2500. We have observed only a very small fraction of this hypothetical doubling factor. So I am really interested in how they came up with that number.

Whoops. missed some zeros. It is 1 over 2,500,000!

Less than a millionth!

Itty freakin bitty.

From the comments on that article: "Lets take 5 data points and project backwards 3x the range of the observed data. Science! Regression!! There's no way this could be wrong, right?" Same objections. Another quotes punctuated equilibrium. I think there is more likelihood there than the gradual evolution that most envision.

Two prominent scientists came up with punctuated equilibrium and remarked "Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

[Quote from wikipedia]

Actually, we have observed this factor as many times as we want to. Think of how you can calculate interest as many times over a year as you'd like. I'm not competent enough to argue this, but only to suggest implications. For example, the paper implies that either life came from outside of earth, or that evolution now has an interesting problem to deal with.

@Alypius If you see what the bank give you for only five day of interest you are still left with the unlikelihood that you will be able to calculate the exact annual rate you are being given. And you need to assume the rate is annual, and not monthly, bi-weekly, or whatever. Also, these are numbers. Not quite the same thing as biology.

@fredsbend ...living space!

Honestly, one of my main objections to pure Evolution is the Cambrian explosion. I consider that to be one of four big creation events that God did (1) the universe, 2) life, 3) Cambrian explosion, 4) Adam and Eve).

And so, assuming the Cambrian explosion was a God-thing, that's gonna throw the extrapolation way off.

Ha, I can parallel this to Jesus' virgin birth. By and large, every single baby is born from a non-virgin. Just because there's one exception doesn't completely invalidate the truth of this statement.