Evolution and the age of the universe

[noturbizniss]

So they plugged one gap, those who like the G-D of the gaps line of reasoning will never run out of gaps...

That's exactly what I was saying. The title of the article is ridiculous. It is simply click-bait

[Achas Veachas]

That's exactly what I was saying. The title of the article is ridiculous. It is simply click-bait

Exactly what I said, all hype and no content. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't describe any theory, all it says is "There is a theory that disproves God".

[noturbizniss]

Exactly what I said, all hype and no content. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't describe any theory, all it says is "There is a theory that disproves God".

I disagree. If true, it would explain how life begins (exactly what a theory is supposed to do). The god point is dumb in the title and if you read through the article, it is clearly secondary if not less important.

"But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test"

That makes it a valid theory, and I am extremely curious to see the results of said test, as well as more details of the mathematical research. The article does not present either of those.

[Achas Veachas]

I disagree. If true, it would explain how life begins (exactly what a theory is supposed to do). The god point is dumb in the title and if you read through the article, it is clearly secondary if not less important.

"But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test"

That makes it a valid theory, and I am extremely curious to see the results of said test, as well as more details of the mathematical research. The article does not present either of those.

Again. The article didn't say anything about the theory other than the fact that it exists. What is the thory? How does it overcome the problems we had until now? The article doesn't explain anything. (besides for the fact that as you mentioned, the source of the article makes it highly suspect...)

[noturbizniss]

Again. The article didn't say anything about the theory other than the fact that it exists. What is the thory? How does it overcome the problems we had until now? The article doesn't explain anything. (besides for the fact that as you mentioned, the source of the article makes it highly suspect...)

"when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy."

[Boruch999]

Observing gravity does not confirm or deny the theory. It is observing predictions of the theroy that confirms it. It is observing things like the perihelion of mercury that confirms it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

Huh? I said

Correct.  The primary difference between them is the prediction of the Theory of Gravity is repeatedly demonstrable to be true.  Anyone can observe it countless times a day.  No one has ever observed evolution.

As far as your second statement, that is blatantly untrue. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Without reading it, I can guarantee that any  "Instances of Speciation" use highly creative definitions of speciation.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc.,

You have declared my statement blatantly untrue by stretching the meaning of "observe," perhaps beyond it's limits. 
Observation is a type of evidence.  Not all evidence is observation. Observations supporting evolution are not the same as observing evolution.

I simply meant to point out that while one can observe the prediction of the Theory of Gravity,  one cannot observe the primary prediction of the Theory of Evolution -that speciation occurs, creating widely diverse species.

and these predictions have been verified many times over.

This is debatable. It depends on your definition of verified.

The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."

This is subjective.  It doesn't overwhelm me.
 

[Achas Veachas]

"when a group of atoms is exposed for a long time to a source of energy, it will restructure itself to dissipate more energy."

OK I'll take that as a teaser.

I don't know I guess I'm asking for too much from what's essentially just a pop-science article. Whatever...

[noturbizniss]

You have declared my statement blatantly untrue by stretching the meaning of "observe," perhaps beyond it's limits. 
Observation is a type of evidence.  Not all evidence is observation. Observations supporting evolution are not the same as observing evolution.

"In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website."

[noturbizniss]

OK I'll take that as a teaser.

I don't know I guess I'm asking for too much from what's essentially just a pop-science article. Whatever...

Exactly how i felt.

[Boruch999]

"But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test"

So when they expose a bunch of atoms to a source of energy for a long time and they become a plant,  the prediction of this theory with have been observed.  When that it observed repeatedly, the theory will approach the status of theories like the Theory of Relativity.

[noturbizniss]

"But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test"

So when the expose a bunch of atoms to a source of energy for a long time and they become a plant,  the prediction of this theory with have been observed.  When that it observed repeatedly, the theory will approach the status of theories like the Theory of Relativity.

The plant life is ridiculous. As Achas said it's a pop Sci piece. But what you said is true. Till then it's more hypothesis than theory

[Boruch999]

"In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website."

No fruit fly became a new type of insect that was not a fruit fly.  No bacterium has yet  split into two insects. Fish  offspring that are resistant to PCB are not a new species.  Fish of different size are not different species.

[noturbizniss]

No fruit fly became a new type of insect that was not a fruit fly.  No bacterium has yet  split into two insects. Fish  offspring that are resistant to PCB are not a new species.  Fish of different size are not different species.

Nobody said it split into a new species, but evolution was observed. It's steps not sudden transformation.

[Achas Veachas]

Nobody said it split into a new species, but evolution was observed. It's steps not sudden transformation.

Boruch is talking about the difference between micro-evolution (evolution within species to make them fitter) that happens all the time and macro-evolution (one species mutating into a new species) which has never been observed yet.

[Boruch999]

Nobody said it split into a new species, but evolution was observed. It's steps not sudden transformation.

You are calling small, relatively insignificant changes evolution, and saying that that is evidence that big, significant changes also occur.

In 150 years, no series of steps has resulted in a new species. To me, that leaves evolution an unproven hypothesis.

[Menachem613]

You are calling small, relatively insignificant changes evolution, and saying that that is evidence that big, significant changes also occur.

In 150 years, no series of steps has resulted in a new species. To me, that leaves evolution an unproven hypothesis.

150 years doesn't seem like enough time for macro evolution.

[jj1000]

150 years doesn't seem like enough time for macro evolution.

Now you understand the problem with calling macro evolution a fact.

That was solved easily enough. That website added nothing to this conversation.

[Boruch999]

150 years doesn't seem like enough time for macro evolution.

If that's the case, then no one has observed it.

[Boruch999]

Boruch is talking about the difference between micro-evolution (evolution within species to make them fitter) that happens all the time and macro-evolution (one species mutating into a new species) which has never been observed yet.

It is not clear that these small changes make them fitter. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/does_speedy_evolution_of_pcb_r044221.html

[Achas Veachas]

It is not clear that these small changes make them fitter. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/does_speedy_evolution_of_pcb_r044221.html

Fitter for the environment they're in...