Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps you're not familiar with what a theory is in science. Learn about it here:
A
scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through
observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the
scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
That's exactly what I said.
No. You seem to be unfamiliar with the process of verification that is essential to theories.
Barbarian observes:
Hence, one can test Darwin's theory by his predictions, such as:
"There should be fossils of whales with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of fish with functional legs."
"There should be fossils of transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, but not birds and mammals."
"A population moving into a new environment will change over time to become more fit in that environment."
"Humans will be found to have first appeared in Africa."
You seem to totally misunderstand the theory of evolution.
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. I've read Darwin's works on the subject. I've taken various courses in evolutionary theory. I know the four points of Darwin's theory, and the modifications of that theory through genetics to that produced the modern synthesis. I've taught the theory, and I produced several mathematical models to demonstrate the process.
What do you bring to the discussion?
The theory is not that there should be fossils of various kinds.
If the theory is true, the fossil record should show all those things, as Darwin, Huxley, and others predicted, based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. And, as you know, those predictions have later been verified. Hypotheses which have been tested and verified in this manner are theories.
In fact, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with fossils.
No, that's wrong. Indeed, Darwin formulated his theory to a great degree, from his studies of fossils. You might do a lot better, if you read his books, particularly
The Voyage of the Beagle and
The Origin of Species.
These remains can be interpreted in a number of ways. They can be interpreted to support evolution, but they can also be interpreted to support creation.
Creation, but not creationism. For example, the transitionals between dinosaurs and birds can only be interpreted as intermediates between the two groups. The fact that birds are genetically closest to reptiles, and dinosaur heme is closest to bird heme further confirms this. But that's just the start. Scutes (a form of scale found in dinosaurs and birds) can be induced to form feathers. The flow-through ventilation system of birds first existed in dinosaurs. Many of the structures of birds were first formed in dinosaurs. Wings were initially formed as aids in bipedal dinosaurs, to control movement while running. There's a lot more, none of which is consistent with creationism.
What the theory of evolution is really about is change. But not just any change.
Specifically, a change in allele frequencies in populations of living things.
We all know that things change and that different species adapt to changes in their environment in various ways.
We also know that new species evolve.
That's not being debated. According to the theory of evolution, these minor changes can accumulate over time to such an extent that a new species, genus, family, order or even higher classifications can arise.
Most creationists now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve. They can hardly deny it, given the evidence, and their need to explain how the Ark might have carried all those animals.
While evolution does predict that certain fossils should exist, other explanations predict the exact same thing.
No, that's wrong. Creationists ridiculed the idea of walking whales. Indeed, I watched a presentation by one creationist who mocked the idea of whales with legs, and who declared that a whale with legs would make him "become an evolutionist." He had to do a lot of fast talking when they were found.
You need more than just fossils to test evolution.
As you learned, the fossils predicted by evolution were later found. But that's not nearly as impressive as the fact that transitionals that should not exist according to the theory, are never found. And of course the genetic, biochemical, anatomical and other data also support evolution, but not creationism.
You need to actually observe a new species coming into being.
The rate of directly observed speciations is more than enough to account for the change in species over the ages. I gave you some examples.
Because of the time involved (millions of years) this can never be done.
Scientists used to think so, but now we have a good number of such examples. Would you like to learn about some more? And keep in mind, these are only the ones we happened to be watching at the right time.
Another thing you need to be able to test this theory is an objective definition of the terms used.
In sexually-reproducing organisms, it's "a population of interbreeding organisms." It works very well. Of course, there are half-way species, quarter-way species, and so on. That is one of the most damaging facts for creationists. If there were no speciations, you would not see the intermediate stages at all, and of course you would never see a speciation event. But we do.
Barbarian observes:
The first directly observed case was about 1914. O. gigas from O. lamarckania, but a polyploidy event. D. miranda was another example of an observed new species.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about this on the Internet. What I was able to find was that this mutant was the result of chromosome doubling.
That's what "polyploidy" means. It's rather common in nature. It's rare in vertebrates, but there is one known example of polyploidy in a rodent, which formed a new species.
I've heard of this happening a number of times in plants (never heard of it in animals, though).
Tympanoctomys barrerae, a South American rodent, is a polyploid species, which evolved from
Octomys mimax. There are also a good number of fish and amphibian species that show such changes. In some mammalian species, aneuploidy has led to mating isolation.
One example is maize (aka "corn"). While it is indeed a different species than it's ancestor from which it doubled it's chromosomes, it is totally incapable of reproducing without human intervention. That may work in a field, but it won't work in nature and can't be used to support evolution.
Polyploidy speciations of wild plants are rather common. About half of all angiosperm species seem to have evolved this way.
Mutants form all the time and mutants die all the time. What you need to test evolution is a viable species.
I showed you some just a bit ago. Would you like to see some more?
It also has to arise without human intervention.
See above.
