It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

No Tzar you gave me a list of crap, nothing definitive, just like phantom has done
I asked clearly and you ignored the question

Your links are valueless

I want anyone to show me a peer reviewed article saying evolution is a scientific fact, not a plethora of links, all saying it's possible

Pointless waste of time, that's all you have got

You have nothing valid


I don't believe in spoonfeeding students. Teach a man to fish and all that stuff. Seems to me you just don't like homework. Guess phantom423 feels differently, you were right to thank them for their charitable posting habits.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



(post by Raggedyman removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RaggedymanSimply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you
Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...


I don't see any links to peer reviewed papers posted there that are unequivocal observations of macroevolution. For example, one of the papers linked was; "Analysis of Prognostic Marker Panel for High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer through Age-Dependent DNA Methylation". I can only assume that the linked papers were merely popular ones that had nothing to do with macroevolution specifically.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This article highlights the dissonance between micro and macroevolutionary models and, in its conclusion, suggests bet-hedging in favor of Steven J. Gould's paper, [i]"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" which, in turn, suggests macroevolutionary shortcomings of the MES.


www.indiana.edu...


Again this article describes issues between micro and macroevolution and links to articles, none of which is unequvocal proof of macroevolution as proposed by the MES.


www.oxfordbibliographies.com...


To quote this article, "Although the proof, occurrence, and mechanisms of evolution at the level of populations, or even genes, are founded on very solid evidence, the substantiation for macroevolution stands on thinner ice."


Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.


A little legwork might have identified that your post did not actually answer the request of the OP, nor is any of it a 'slam dunk' proof of macroevolution.


You read every journal and article and book referenced in all of those links? You're a fast reader!

Here's another link to add to the four I provided earlier, that you so easily dismissed.

www.quora.com... man

Maybe you should reread some of those journals.


I'm getting a 404 error on that link.


Sorry about that. Try this one.

What is the scientific evidence to support macroevolution?

Did you take my advice on rereading those other sites? they are more of a gateway to the relevant materials, you will have to do some digging. several complicated fields of study converge on the theory of evolution so it's not exactly a simple subject to explore.


On certain of those other papers, I contented myself with reading the abstract and noting that they had nothing that specifically related to macroevolution. Those which may have a possibility of evidencing so, I read in entirety, as did I for those that were just interesting to me.

Let me be specific here, macroevolution requires a sequence of individual and dependent steps. Proof of a single step or process does not prove the entirety of macroevolution. To prove macroevolution, one would have to be satisfied that all necessary steps had occurred and in the correct sequence in each situation.

Now I am aware that the scientific method is reductionist and deals mostly with the individual processes, but we are assumedly getting hundreds of new species every year and the kudos to any researcher who end-to-end documents evidence of macroevolution would be incredible.

There is neither lack of motivation nor of opportunity.

Yet here we are, in a seeming drought of such incontrovertible evidence, after hundreds of years and tens of thousands of biological researchers?

Also, the real issue is biological process. Why do you keep drawing the religion card?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasmNo Tzar you gave me a list of crap, nothing definitive, just like phantom has done
I asked clearly and you ignored the question

Your links are valueless

I want anyone to show me a peer reviewed article saying evolution is a scientific fact, not a plethora of links, all saying it's possible

Pointless waste of time, that's all you have got

You have nothing valid
I don't believe in spoonfeeding students. Teach a man to fish and all that stuff. Seems to me you just don't like homework. Guess phantom423 feels differently, you were right to thank them for their charitable posting habits.


So go away, why even post in the thread?
Seriously, why are you even here, think about that question...
If you read the opening post like a capable adult you would have realised you where wasting your time and mine

Just be a grown up and leave the thread

You are the one wasting everyone's time, this isn't your first attempt to make a fool out of what you call "evolutionists". And you have never expressed any intention of changing your mind. Quite the opposite.


It's Raggedy's thread! He asked a direct and clear question and no-one has provided a specific clear answer to it.

I also disagree that Raggedy is making a fool of 'evolutionists' per se, just of people who attempt to support their opinion by inferring that the opinion is 'scientific'.

edit on 27/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Then I can't wait to see Mr raggedy give phantom423 five stars for his/her quality post and maybe concede that science is on to something with this evolution business, macro and micro alike. Takes a big man to admit when he's wrong, you know?
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   
More links!

www.indiana.edu...

www.indiana.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.indiana.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

Might be worth mentioning that "macroevolution" isnt the technical term...professionals use the word "speciation". IDK if anyone cares about that.

Enjoy the links.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of evolution as fact:

Journal: Evolutionary & Developmental Biology
January 2008, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 46–52

link.springer.com...





Evolution as Fact

The notion that species may change through time and that living organisms are related to one another through common descent was not original to Charles Darwin. Ideas regarding evolutionary change, as with ideas about gravity, extend back at least to a few ancient Greek thinkers. There had been much discussion of this topic two generations before Darwin based on the writings of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, and Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was explicit in his view that species could change. Darwin’s major contribution on this issue was not to introduce the idea, but to assemble a massive compendium of data in support of what he called “descent with modification”. In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin cited independent lines of evidence such as the biogeographical distribution of species, homology of structure, the occurrence of vestigial organs and atavisms, and the already well established process of extinction as all pointing to a conclusion that species have changed over time and are connected by descent from common ancestors. Through the force of Darwin’s argument and the mass of supporting data he presented, it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent. As A.W. Bennett summarized the situation in 1870, The fascinating hypothesis of [descent with modification] has, within the last few years, so completely taken hold of the scientific mind, both in [Great Britain] and in Germany, that almost the whole of our rising men of science may be classed as belonging to this school of thought. Probably since the time of Newton no man has had so great an influence over the development of scientific thought as Mr. Darwin. Over the past 150 years, this initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.


List of peer-reviewers:

Editor-in-Chief:

T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

Senior Handling Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Associate Editors:

David Baum, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Norman Johnson, U. Mass, Amherst, USA

Ross Nehm, Stony Brook, NY, USA

Briana Pobiner, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

Donald Prothero, Natural History Museum of L.A. County, CA, USA

Book Reviews Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Editorial Board:

Brian Alters, Chapman University, USA

Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education, USA

Sarah Brem, Arizona State University, USA

Roy Caldwell, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

Joel Cracraft, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Douglas Eldredge, Lincoln High School, USA

Douglas Futuyma, Stony Brook University, USA

Penny Gilmer, Florida State University, USA

Rolando González-José, Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Argentina

Diddahally Govindaraju, Harvard University, USA

Joseph L. Graves Jr., Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, NCATSU & UNC

Michael Hammond, University of Toronto, Canada

Sidney Horenstein, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA

Kristin Jenkins, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, USA

David Kohn, Darwin Digital Library of Evolution, USA

Ulrich Kutschera, University of Kassel, Germany

Bruce S. Lieberman, University of Kansas, USA

Tania Lombrozo, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Lee Anne Martinez, Colorado State University - Pueblo, USA

William McComas, University of Arkansas, USA

Rodrigo Medel, University of Chile, Chile

William Miller III, Humboldt State University, USA

Ronald L Numbers, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Telmo Pievani, University of Milan II, Italy

Darren Rebar, Cambridge University, UK

Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education, USA

Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Ilya Tëmkin, Northern Virginia Community College, USA

Anna Thanukos, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

John Thompson, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Jory P. Weintraub, Duke University, USA

David Sloan Wilson, Binghamton University, USA

_________________________________________________________________________________

Con't

I can see this is continued so I will respond first to the preceding post only, in this post.

The quoted article is peer reviewed but is an opinion piece with several discrete supportive papers but no actual observation of an instance where the entire set of proposed mechanisms that form macroevolution, has been observed, in a change from one species to the next (this in spite of the proposed prevalence of speciation and the level of scrutiny which the subject has been given).

As far as I can see, Raggedy admits to the rationality of existence of the occurrence of the individual steps that comprise macroevolution and to its general reasonableness.

An analogous example to explain why this particular article does not actually answer the OP, would be that the Ancient and Classical Greeks knew about pistons, wheels, gears and the flammability of oils and petroleum-like liquids. This does not evidence that they drove diesel engine cars. To make that statement you would need to observe all the components in use at once, i.e: traces of an actual ancient car based upon those components.

The same for macroevolution, it requires an incontrovertible but also comprehensive proof, inclusive of all its logical necessary sub-components.

Really, we should have thousands of such end-to-end examples and peer reviewed papers.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

From what I have read so far, it's arguments over words, nothing even related to evolution in nature
Kinda a copout to me as opposed to anything valid
Pedantic's doesn't make a solid argument for evolution, but Phantom knew that, hence why he used that article
Fuzzy logic at its best



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   


Relevant based on previous comments.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure hopes someone answers it, the question I asked that is.
8 pages and crickets

Wouldn't think it that hard if evolution was a scientific fact

Echo?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

National Academy of Science, Engineering, Medicine
www.nationalacademies.org...

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
www.pnas.org...



Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


List of peer-reviewers:

Evolutionary Biology

May R. Berenbaum
W. Ford Doolittle
Douglas J. Futuyma
Daniel L. Hartl
David M. Hillis
Hopi E. Hoekstra
David Jablonski
Richard E. Lenski
Gene E. Robinson
Nils C. Stenseth
Joan E. Strassmann


Neither link in the post points to a specific article or paper.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Round and round we go,where it stops....you know the rest



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure hopes someone answers it, the question I asked that is.
8 pages and crickets

Wouldn't think it that hard if evolution was a scientific fact

Echo?


No, you got your answers. You will never be convinced, which is what makes these threads so pointless. You refused to acknowledge all efforts, as predicted. You never intended to change your mind, and you never will.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure hopes someone answers it, the question I asked that is.
8 pages and crickets

Wouldn't think it that hard if evolution was a scientific fact

Echo?


No, you got your answers. You will never be convinced, which is what makes these threads so pointless. You refused to acknowledge all efforts, as predicted. You never intended to change your mind, and you never will.


Yes, I agree that Phantom has provided "a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution" but although the specifics of the first part of the request has been fulfilled, the second part "I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements" is a matter of opinion, as to if it has been met.

Surely there are such examples, like Pan-vertebrate comparative genomics unmasks retrovirus macroevolution., however in this case, describing changes in viral gene expression (are they 'speciating'?) is arguably a rather extreme stretch of the term 'macroevolution'.

edit on 28/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Actually Tzar, that's not even remotely true
I am happy to concede, if that's an accurate statement, many Christians believe in evolution and walk their faith believing in evolution
I as a Christian don't see any problems accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour and also accepting evolution, know many who do
So to suggest I won't or can't...



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Relevant based on previous comments.


It is not amazing what you will post to cloud the discussion
How about a peer reviewed article as asked for

That would be cool



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I understand your position and expected a similar response from someone. And I don't disagree with you. The articles I posted are indeed general articles. Here's the problem: In order to satisfy the OP's requirements, the OP would have to select a topic/subtopic in evolutionary science which would then be analyzed in detail to determine how and why the results are considered to be "fact". We certainly can do that (more detail below).

Note the definition of "fact" from the National Academy of Science:



In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


The OP would first have to post his definition of "fact". It may be very different than the definition used in science, in which case, there's really nothing to discuss. However, if the OP agrees on a definition of "fact", then he would have to focus on at least one aspect of evolutionary science which is considered to be "fact". As you well know, there are thousands of research papers in evolutionary science. Evolutionary science encompasses a huge body of research and conclusive evidence. It can't be reduced to a single research paper which states in the Conclusion: "This paper proves beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is fact".

I understand completely what the OP continually asks for. But the OP has never engaged in a real discussion of the SCIENCE.

My suggestion is that the OP select a topic from the long list of subtopics in evolutionary science and engage in a discussion as to how the body of research is sufficient to be labeled as "fact". Some topics to consider: geological timelines and the physics of isotopic evidence which defines those timelines; transitional fossils and how the evidence is analyzed and conclusions drawn; genetic and molecular biology research.

Creationists whitewash the evidence by never engaging in a real discussion of the science. They tend to present semantical arguments which avoid the real science like the plague. I don't know if the OP is a Creationist or just interested in why evolution is considered "fact". If it's the latter, then it can be explained albeit in very lengthy, detailed discussions. If it's the former, then there's no explanation which would satisfy the question. And on that point, we've dealt with that ad infinitum so there's no need to discuss it further.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

I understand your position and expected a similar response from someone. And I don't disagree with you. The articles I posted are indeed general articles. Here's the problem: In order to satisfy the OP's requirements, the OP would have to select a topic/subtopic in evolutionary science which would then be analyzed in detail to determine how and why the results are considered to be "fact". We certainly can do that (more detail below).

Note the definition of "fact" from the National Academy of Science:



In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


The OP would first have to post his definition of "fact". It may be very different than the definition used in science, in which case, there's really nothing to discuss. However, if the OP agrees on a definition of "fact", then he would have to focus on at least one aspect of evolutionary science which is considered to be "fact". As you well know, there are thousands of research papers in evolutionary science. Evolutionary science encompasses a huge body of research and conclusive evidence. It can't be reduced to a single research paper which states in the Conclusion: "This paper proves beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is fact".

I understand completely what the OP continually asks for. But the OP has never engaged in a real discussion of the SCIENCE.

My suggestion is that the OP select a topic from the long list of subtopics in evolutionary science and engage in a discussion as to how the body of research is sufficient to be labeled as "fact". Some topics to consider: geological timelines and the physics of isotopic evidence which defines those timelines; transitional fossils and how the evidence is analyzed and conclusions drawn; genetic and molecular biology research.

Creationists whitewash the evidence by never engaging in a real discussion of the science. They tend to present semantical arguments which avoid the real science like the plague. I don't know if the OP is a Creationist or just interested in why evolution is considered "fact". If it's the latter, then it can be explained albeit in very lengthy, detailed discussions. If it's the former, then there's no explanation which would satisfy the question. And on that point, we've dealt with that ad infinitum so there's no need to discuss it further.






Arguing fact, pedantics, I asked for science, does it matter what the definition of fact is, follow the op
Don't mind what you offer in the way of topics, it's a free for all, just as long as it fits the criteria in the op
You are just hiding behind pedantics Phantom

I don't want some silly detailed discussion, just real, verified science

I am not whitewashing evidence Phantom, I am asking for it, why can't you comprehend that basic fact. I am asking for REAL SCIENCE, not assumption

And I will engage in discussion, when you can, all I see is...nothing, 8 pages of nothing

You are doing more damage to your position by remaining silent, hiding from answering the question, by posting fluff



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join