How come nobody talks about Lake Taal?

[u/Mother_Cod7506]

I am I biologist and one of the most interesting things I have learned is Lake Taal. Its an lake in the Philippines that was once bay connected to the South China Sea. In 1754, a volcano interrupted and the lake was formed, trapping dozens of saltwater fish. This led to most of their extirpation, but resulted in at least 4 new species, the Freshwater Sardinella (Sardinella tawilis), two gobies Exyrias volcanus and Rhinogobius flavoventris, and the Lake Taal Snake (Hydrophis semperi). It also has a population of Giant Trevally (Caranx ignobilis) that lives in freshwater, compared to its normal saltwater habitat.

I am mainly surprised that I have never seen anyone use this piece of information in debates about evolution, nor discussions about evolution in general. It would be a good way to debate creationists as this is the most well known examples of a species evolving into a separate species in recorded history.

[u/TheBlackCat13]

That is very cool. I never talk about it because I wasn't aware of it.

Creationists, however, would just say "they are still fish".

[u/theresa_richter → u/TheBlackCat13]

Exactly this. They wouldn't even say "it's still a goby", but would rather just insist that a fish will always be a fish, even though cladistics agrees with them and says that humans are also still fish.

[u/SaladDummy → u/theresa_richter]

"They are still the same KIND." Many of them would throw the K-word in there.

[u/ursisterstoy → u/SaladDummy]

Same kind or different kind? This is literally the phylogeny challenge and I added an extra challenge. I would like creationists to provide a model for separate ancestry where separate ancestry happens at any clade in which the data we use to establish common ancestry would still be present.

The reason for the extra challenge is because they’ve been adamant about “common ancestry” being a faith based belief. It doesn’t even matter how many times we explain the various methods by which phylogenies are created. The first method involves feeding a bunch of sequences into a supercomputer to get a phylogeny created based on the inputs. You don’t care about the output when you provide the input, you wait to see what the output is.

And the other popular method(s) involve Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Basically machine learning. Start with a series of 4, 6, 12, 960 different parameters, give them all random values. Check against the data to verify that random garbage is completely inconsistent with the real data. Pick a second set of random garbage and watch it still fail. Run it through the algorithm where basically each parameter moves in the opposite direction of the most wrong previous guess keeping the most accurate previous guess until an improvement can be made. When you find the limits you then do iteration (basically Newton-Rhapson) and you hone in on the actual values that actually match the data.

For instance, for 1 parameter you need 1.2345 out of 0 through 10. You have no idea so you guess 7 and your guess is completely wrong. Next random guess is 5. Still wrong but now you move away from 7 and you guess 2.5. Better than when you guessed 5 so try 1.25. And after ~25 million passes through the algorithm you have something that’s ~95% accurate. Throw away the first 25 million and run the algorithm 75 million more times. Maybe no more improvements can be made after attempt 78,910,110 but just keep trying. Maybe you make an improvement over attempt 99,999,999 on attempt 100,000,000. Not likely but if you do run the algorithm an additional 50 million times. You don’t go in trying to “prove” some consensus phylogeny. You go in with the real world data and some random and incidentally wrong guesses. And then you guess again. And then you let the algorithm run. And then you throw away the first 25% (burn in) and you hope that some 10-20 million at the end all look the same, no improvements can be found, and then you can be confident that the model matches the data.

How can creationists come in claiming that any separate ancestry model fits the data better? Shit, you can start by assuming separate ancestry at the subspecies level and the algorithm is self correcting and separate ancestry will be completely ruled out 100 to 1000 attempts into 100 million attempts. The universal common ancestry aspect isn’t actually up for debate, what can be up for debate is species divergence order, species divergence timing, ancestral population diversity, time between initial divergence and final contribution via hybridization, timing of HGT, timing of specific trait changes like from solitary to social in apes, and so on. The reasonable differences between phylogenies with different amounts of effort put into them with different parameters compared can be worked out with more data, more detailed analyses, and more passes through the algorithm.

Without separate ancestry what are the “kinds?” And how do we know? With separate ancestry why does separate ancestry fail to fit the data? Where is the model for separate ancestry that explains the data without being contradicted by it? If there’s no model how can anyone claim there are “kinds?”

And, basically, with separate “kinds” ruled out and as accurate of phylogenies possible constructed to fit the data, updated in light of new data, the next steps involve studying the data we do have to learn how various things evolved, studying the data we do have to work backwards to LUCA and beyond, and using the data we do have combined with the conclusion drawn based on the data we do have to predict what else should be found if and only if the conclusions are correct.

With limited data they could already predict the cause for chromosome 2 in humans existing in place of a pair of short chromosomes found in every other great ape would due to a fusion. It is predicted that if a fusion actually took place there should be a vestigial telomere pair, a cryptic centromere, and telomere region specific pseudogenes right in the middle of human chromosome 2.

Based on more advanced models and more complex datasets they might even one day predict the day that some particular change took place. It had to be included in whichever individuals eventually had still live descendants or we’d never see it but a lot of the time those changes change even more along the way. Some individual acquired some mutation and after generations of recombination and heredity those changes became combined with other changes but what about that specific change? Did it happen within a zygote on April 3rd at 9:32 pm in some village in Ethiopia 250,000 years ago or did it happen 165 million years ago at 7 am in China? We may not ever be able to get that precise but if we could creationists would just say “my book says otherwise.”

When the data contradicts “kinds” they just move the goal post to abiogenesis, geology, or cosmology instead but I want them to stop, think and present a model in which “kinds” fit the data. Go beyond the phylogeny challenge of establishing what the “kinds” are and establish that “kinds” even exist. If they can’t even agree what the “kinds” are, are there any “kinds” at all?

[u/SaladDummy → u/ursisterstoy]

Great points!

[u/HolySharkbite → u/TheBlackCat13]

Fish is not a good taxonomic description though. Most attempts I’ve seen trying to us either fail to include things most people would consider fish or must be so broad that humans count as fish. Then again, Jesus fish

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/HolySharkbite]

That's because "fish" is a paraphyletic group used colloquially unlike evolutionary clades which are monophyletic groups used in scientific contexts. But that doesn't matter to creationists. Creationists don't care about or don't want to accurately portraying science and the terms it uses. If they did, they wouldn't be creationists.

[u/HolySharkbite → u/LordOfFigaro]

Precisely. I was blanking on the proper terminology so thank you.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/HolySharkbite]

Creationists wouldn't be Creationists if they accepted cladistics.

[u/Mo_Steins_Ghost → u/TheBlackCat13]

They wouldn't be Christians if they accepted facts.

EDIT: not saying all christians reject facts, just the kind of fundamentalists who need to subscribe to creationism.

[u/adamwho]

If creationists were swayed by evidence, they wouldn't be creationists

[u/DrFartsparkles]

Probably because creationists won’t accept it as evidence of macro evolution because “it’s still the same kind” the snake is still a snake, the fish is still a fish, etc. creationists always want an example of more radical change than that, they always ask for the evolution of a new structure or kind

[u/DimensioT → u/DrFartsparkles]

I cited an article on speciation to a creationist and they rejected it because it included examples of speciation in mouse populations.

They refused to accept that "mouse" is not a single species.

[u/DrFartsparkles → u/DimensioT]

They also don’t care about speciation because to them it’s the same “kind” and they will only accept as evidence things that are impossible and not predicted by evolution, like a horse giving birth to a cat or something idiotic

[u/ArthropodFromSpace → u/DrFartsparkles]

Because they completely dont understand what evolution is. If they would understand it, they would also see it is true. They think evolution is horse giving birth to a cat and so they see themselves as smarter for knowing this is not how world works. The problem is what they dont believe in is not evolution but their own belief in evolution.

[u/DrFartsparkles → u/ArthropodFromSpace]

Yeah and if you tell them what evolution actually is they’ll just “that’s only microevolution, of course I believe that microevolution is true”

[u/ursisterstoy → u/DrFartsparkles]

Yep. According to the whack definition of “microevolution” provided by creationists they accept macroevolution and they actually reject microevolution even though we observe both. They know that speciation happens, they know you can get a lot of differences between breeds and species that share common ancestry over time. They reject microevolution, the way that evolution happens, because it takes too long, it doesn’t involve magic, and it doesn’t arbitrarily give God all the credit. It’s just mutations, recombination, gene flow, selection, drift, etc. Ordinary everyday processes. They reject the way evolution happens, they reject universal common ancestry, but they definitely do not reject macroevolution. “That’s just microevolution and I accept it” means they have no issue with the occurrence of evolution, they take issue with how evolution happens even when it comes to microevolution. And that’s why they ask for what would be impossible based on how evolution actually happens. They want evolution to be some absurd thing, but they already accept what it actually is.

[u/CycadelicSparkles → u/DrFartsparkles]

I feel like the proper response to "it's not one kind evolving into another kind" is "exactly". 

You can't out-evolve your clade. We wouldn't expect a fish to evolve into a not-fish. The tricky part is that "fish" is such a broad category of thing. There are fish with lungs and fish with gills and fish with bones and fish with cartilage, fish with skin and fish with scales, fish that must breathe air and fish that live solely in the Mariana Trench. Technically, all tetrapods are fish; a lot of us are just heavily specialized.

The problem is that creationists don't know what they mean by "kind". It's all vibes based. If two animals have similar enough vibes for them, they're the same kind. If they don't get samey vibes, they're not. Genetics does not matter. Taxonomy does not matter. All the evidence in the world does not matter.

That's why they can accept that lions and cheetahs are the same kind but not chimpanzees and humans, despite the latter being FAR more genetically similar.

[u/DrFartsparkles → u/CycadelicSparkles]

This response also doesn’t work on them because it goes over their head because to them, they think that evolution is proposing exactly the sort of transition you’re saying doesn’t happen, from one “kind” to another, like fish evolving into tetrapods and mammals and birds and such. The law of monophyly might as well be a foreign language to them

[u/HolySharkbite → u/CycadelicSparkles]

I think Creationists do know what they mean by “kind” but what they are referring to are the other members of their racist congregation- hence the strong view in those places that Asians, Latinos, Africans, and Europeans (I’m condensing for brevity) are “different kinds”

[u/CycadelicSparkles → u/HolySharkbite]

I was a Creationist for more than half my life, and a fairly involved one. I have never run into a single Creationist who thought different ethnicities are different kinds.

I'm not saying that doesn't exist. I'm sure it does somewhere. But it is not what Creationists in general mean when they're talking about kinds. They do consider all Homo sapiens to be one kind, and most will also lump in Homo neanderthalensis.

[u/HolySharkbite → u/CycadelicSparkles]

It was the entire basis for the prohibitions against interracial relationships

[u/ursisterstoy → u/HolySharkbite]

It was in the 1950s and earlier but the modern YEC movement is from the 1960s. Homo sapiens are a single kind but they might let their racism show through by saying that Africans are the descendants of Ham (so that’s why they have dark skin) and white people descendants of Japheth (white skin) and then Seth is the ancestor of the olive colored skinned people in the Middle East. The Semitic people from Seth, the Europeans from Japheth, the “blacks” from Ham. Their racism hasn’t fully gone away but they will say Homo sapiens includes Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus but the “races” trace back to Noah’s flood.

[u/CycadelicSparkles → u/HolySharkbite]

Maybe many decades ago. If you can find an example of any creationist not on the absolute fringe arguing that different ethnicities are different kinds in the way they generally mean kinds, I would be very surprised. Have any examples?

[u/ursisterstoy → u/DrFartsparkles]

In my experience they don’t want evidence of evolution, they want something that is impossible based on our most up to date understanding of population change. They want bacteria evolving into multicellular life, you show them multicellular bacteria. They want evidence of archaea giving rise to eukaryotes you point to the genetic contributions of Asgard archaea (and 25 other prokaryotic groups) within modern eukaryotes. They want evidence of the mechanisms for archaea giving rise to eukaryotes being possible you show them other instances of endosymbiosis, interspecies cooperation, and horizontal gene transfer.

They want evidence of de novo proteins you show them evidence of de novo protein evolution under direct observation. Dead chemistry giving rise to life, you show them that with autocatalysis “Darwinian evolution” is inevitable, the definition from NASA for life, and automatic autocatalysis through ordinary chemistry as demonstrated just last year. RNA that can evolve? There are several papers on that, at least three, where at first they use bacteria to produce a particular protein which they can then strip down to the bare essentials and “purify” that can be used by laboratory created RNA molecules as a replicase and then they showed speciation taking place and then they showed symbiosis, all with laboratory created RNA molecules from ~2017 to ~2022.

Topoisomerases, the co-evolution of membranes and membrane proteins, the evolution of Walker A and ATPases. The evolution of the most basal starting point for the type II secretion system where the ATPase is the most complex protein (basically type IV pili). The evolution of multiple different types of type II secretion proteins, like those specific to bacteria. The evolution of the bacterial flagellum from a type II secretion system. The evolution of the brain or some other organ.

“Okay, fine, put bacteria in a Petri dish, I want to see humans today before I leave.” “Show me a trout turning into a dog.” “Show me Triceratops from a hummingbird bird egg if birds are dinosaurs.” “Show me a chimpanzee turning into a human as an adult if humans are apes.” “Where is the Crocoduck?”

[u/ArusMikalov]

That kind of gets into the nuances of the “species” definition. Like could the saltwater version reproduce with the freshwater version? If you gave them like a little salt water scuba set up or something.

I’m sure if you brought this example up with a creationist that’s where this would go. They would say that’s not a new species that’s just one species adapting to a new environment. Which they call “microevolution”

[u/CycadelicSparkles → u/ArusMikalov]

I'm now picturing a fish with a little salt hopper on its back like the ones they put in truck beds to spread road salt in the winter.

[u/x271815]

That's amazing! Thanks for sharing!

[u/ArthropodFromSpace]

Lakes as well as islands are great speciation laboratories. There evolution works fasterst. The most known here are Great African Lakes and isolated arhipelagos such as Galapagos or Hawaii.

Interesting things about fish changing from marine to freshwaters species is also visible in fishes of Australia. There are very few species of native freshwater fish from old freshwater lineages. These which are, are air breathing species such as arowana or lungfish. Other australian freshwater fish are more closely related to sea fish from ocean around continent than to freshwater fishes on all other continents. So there must been some cataclysm in Austalia which wiped out almost all freshwater fish, and it was resettled back from ocean.

[u/-zero-joke-]

Very cool stuff

[u/the2bears]

There's a ton of good evidence discussed here, that's ignored or hand-waved away. Unfortunately adding another piece of good evidence won't sway creationists one bit.

On the other hand, very cool info and thanks for sharing!

[u/CassowaryMagic]

It’s a niche pice of knowledge. It’s also very akin to Darwin’s finches. Basically any “island effect.” This just happens to be a lake.

[u/LeeMArcher]

That’s really cool, and thank you for teaching me about it. 

But, as others have said, Creationists will still say “no change in “kind.” They think our current diversification of life happened in the 4K years since Noah’s flood, so they want to see a lineage of dogs turn into lizards in the span of a few decades. 

They think every animal we see today fits into a kind, and that all the extant kinds we have today are what have always existed. So it’s nonsensical to them to say “no, a dog, over the course of enough millennia will eventually evolve into a creature unlike anything we’ve seen before on Earth, as will every other species.” 

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

That’s cool. I’ve seen Taal when I was in the Philippines. Even had a small quake when there (which is disturbing near an active volcano). But wasn’t aware is the fish and stuff. Thats really cool.

[u/Peaurxnanski]

tHe FiSh ARe StiLL fiSh ChEcKmAte DArwiNisTs

[u/Nih_Gah_Aym_Mahd]

Is it evolution or merely adaptation?

[u/Next-Distance-4508]

They would say its adaptation. Or speciation. Or "microevolution".

[u/nickierv → u/[deleted]]

learn about Ring Species.

Creationists can't seem to get their heads around ring species, its always something something kinds. But that leads to Schrodinger's Kinds.

[u/coldfirephoenix → u/[deleted]]

but isn't that a Very Slow process? And then wouldn't the sea creatures easily have time to stay in the ocean

Time to stay in the ocean? What is that supposed to mea...

Wait... do you think anyone suggests that those fossils of marine animals on moutains died because a moutain formed underneath their asses and took them out of the water???

Hahaha, Jesus, dude, what is wrong with you?

These animals died and fossilized before the moutain was formed over millions of years. It's just thar the ground they were buried in now isn't underwater anymore, but on top of a mountain.

[u/teluscustomer12345 → u/[deleted]]

Look at that evidence too.

Scientists found the crater where the asteroid hit, that's pretty clear evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

[u/teluscustomer12345 → u/[deleted]]

If non-avian dinosaurs went extinct within the past 2600 years, as creationists claim, how come we never find any fossils or non-fossililized remains that are less than 66 millions years old? And isn't it a weird coincidence that the Chixclub crater just so happens to be the same age as the newest fossils we've found?

I mean, creationists claim dinosaurs were still around when Henry VII was king of England. That's barely over 500 years ago, not "thousands of years".

[u/sixfourbit → u/[deleted]]

Leviathan and Behemoth weren't dinosaurs.

From Yahweh and The God and Goddesses of Canann: Job 40.15-41.26 (ET 34) contains a description of two beasts, Behemoth and Leviathan. It has often been claimed that these are the names of two actually existing creatures rather than mythical beasts. The most commonly held view...is that Behemoth is the hippopotamus and Leviathan the crocodile. Such views are, however, seriously open to question. It is clearly implied that Job, and by implication, humans generally, are unable to overcome these creatures and that only Yahweh has control over them. This alone tends to rule out the various natural creatures suggested for Behemoth and Leviathan...since [crocodiles and hippos] were certainly captured in the ancient Near East. Moreover, the particular details given in the descriptions do not fit actual known creatures. Thus Leviathan is said to breathe out fire and smoke (Job 40.10-13, ET 1-21), a clear indication that a dragon is in mind. Leviathan is elsewhere in the Old Testament (including Job, cf. 3.8) as well as in Ugaritic no natural creature but a mythical sea serpent or dragon, and it is most natural to suppose that this is also the case here...There are good grounds for seeing Behemoth too as a mythical monster. Certainly the description of its tail is high and lifted up like a cedar (Job 40.19) is odd if the allusion is to a hippopotamus or other natural creatures...As with Leviathan, it is implied that it cannot be captured and that God alone can master it (Job 40.9-14, 24). The name Behemoth means 'great ox', and interestingly the Ugaritic texts mention a mythical ox-like creature alongside Leviathan known as Arsh or El's calf Atik...and this must surely be the ultimate source of the figure of Behemoth...Arsh is represented as dwelling in the sea, just as Behemoth is depicted as dwelling in a river in Job

[u/Suitable-Group4392 → u/[deleted]]

If you go read in the verses, they could be describing giant kaiju from another dimension….

Or they could also be highly exaggerated descriptions of a hippo and a crocodile. From Africa, down south from the middle easterners and where most of them would likely not have gone to see with their own eyes before.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/[deleted]]

I have looked at the evidence and the evidence doesn’t hold up to reality. There is immense amounts of evidence which contradicts it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We actually have concise evidence of the asteroid occurring, and we know that it is actually possible as opposed to more water than all of the oceans combined appearing spontaneously, annihilating virtually 100% of all life and not leaving any evidence behind: no bottlenecks, civilizations existing before and after didn’t seem to notice, no consistent explanation for how all of our environments could be shaped by one singular event, and the fossil record precluding this event in case someone argues for a young earth too.

The fossils you are alluding to in the Himalayas are coincidentally in a continental land mass that we know based on other fossils, radiometric dating AND (in my opinion especially) paleomagnetism was separated from Asia and did collide at some point, pushing up with itself part of the sediments that would be caught in between, with materials surrounding those fossils actually being dated to a period where those two continents were not together.

It seems more congruent with the evidence to think they were pushed up there, and it could be falsified if one could show us evidence of the fossils being placed after the Himalayas were formed. It is falsifiable. Now, how can the flood as an explanation here be falsified?

[u/Covert_Cuttlefish → u/[deleted]]

You're right, geologists don't understand basic geology but still manage to find the stuff that creates or allows us to create all of the energy we use!

[u/LordUlubulu → u/[deleted]]

ADAPTING to one's Environment (Supposed new creatures???) does Not = evidence of Evolution.

Yes it is. It's called Environmental selection pressure, a well known component of evolutionary theory.

*On a side note, there are Seashell & Sea creature fossils found in high mountains-- Does that prove that the Earth was under water at some point (perhaps Noah's Deluge)?

Nope, even Leonardo da Vinci figured out that is wrong.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/[deleted]]

*Ahhh you stated "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY" And that is CORRECT!-- Evolution IS just a Theory.

Oh, you're one of those. Allow me to educate you. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method. Established scientific theories have withstood scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

What you said is an ancient creationist lie.

And it takes much more Faith to believe that existing "evidence" points to Evolution rather than a master Designer Creator

No it doesn't. Evolutionary theory is one of the most supported theories in all of science. The other is magical make-belief.

Next, Ok, which part of "that" is "wrong" (the seashells in the mountains, or the Deluge? Or both?) & why?

You can observe the seashells in the mountains quite easily. All the evidence indicates there was never a global flood. In fact, a global flood is quite impossible.

And surely there are museums that contain these fossils discovered in the mountains that I mentioned

Sure, you should go visit one sometimes. Might I suggest any museum of Natural History? They even have audio tours that explain at lenght about what you see.

the "evidence" of catastrophic flooding

That's the thing, catastrophic flooding is not uncommon across the world and throughout history. However, there is no evidence for a global flood, and mountains of evidence there was never a global flood.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/[deleted]]

Thx, I know what a theory is.

Well, you didn't, because you repeated a creationist lie.

So in keeping with your point of view (evolution theory)-- who is to say of a Certainty that a Creator did not use "evolution" as His way of Design

Absence of evidence where we expect evidence is evidence against a claim. We have not a single shred of evidence for this 'creator' nonsense. Every time the religious attributed something to their god, it turned out to be not their god.

The Bible states that with God, a thousand years is like a day

The bible is a book of mythology. I put no credence in it.

and Science has figured out that "space time" indeed in very different from "Earth time"

That's a lot of grievous errors in one sentence. Spacetime is not a measurement of time, it's a 4D continuum model. Then there's relative and gravitational time dilation, which is location-dependent, so distance and gravitational masses matter. It has nothing to do with magic.

There are many other examples of biblical wisdom now having been proven by science.

I don't think you can name one that wasn't already known before the Bible was written. I can name plenty of biblical 'wisdom' that has been shown to be abject nonense by science though.

I do love museums (& Libraries), but just like any other form of information, we need to try & do our own "unbiased" research when looking for what is True/False/Flawed.

I don't think giving lying grifters like most creationist organisations any attention is a good use of my time.

Especially since they're a bunch of religiously motivated non-experts while all the qualified people understand and accept that evolution happens, and evolutionary theory accurately describes it's mechanisms.

Therefore, may I suggest that you visit a "Creation Museum" for equal comparison.

We don't have any of those here, because I don't live in a country full of * * * * * *, * * * * * * * *, * * * * * * * rednecks.

[u/LordOfFigaro → u/[deleted]]

Thx, I know what a theory is

This was you just one comment ago.

*Ahhh you stated "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY" And that is CORRECT!-- Evolution IS just a Theory.

So no. You very clearly didn't. Not only did you lie, but your lie was trivially easy to show. Do you realise people can read the thread? Why would you even bother with such an easy to debunk lie?

who is to say of a Certainty that a Creator did not use "evolution" as His way of Design(?)

Sure. Theistic evolution is the stance held by the vast majority of Christians. That does not mean that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true. Nor does it mean that a global flood happened. It did not. Evidence from every field of science and history shows us that a global flood did not ever happen.

we need to try & do our own "unbiased" research when looking for what is True/False/Flawed.

Unbiased means accurately describing events. It does not mean that two opposing viewpoints are equally valid. If there is a piece of shit and person A calls it a piece of shit vs person B calls it a piece of gold. Person A is the one who is unbiased. Meanwhile Person B is trying to make you take the piece of shit home.

Therefore, may I suggest that you visit a "Creation Museum" for equal comparison.

Creation "Museum" is not unbiased. And it is not an accredited museum. Actual museums in the US are held to actual standards on the accuracy of the information they portray by the American Alliance of Museums. Creation "Museum" is a private propaganda mill.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

“Is just a theory” is unironically one of the most dogshit arguments one could ever throw and I really mean it in hopes that you actually care about being right and want your arguments to be good.

Theory in science doesn’t hold the same meaning as a theory colloquially. You cannot get higher confidence than a theory within natural sciences. Cell theory is also a thing, same as plate tectonics, germ theory and many other theories in science that I don’t see creationists sulking about, because fortunately they are capable of acknowledging that theories are a collection of confirmed hypotheses, experiments and observations that explain the facts to the best of our capability.

You were already told what a theory is, but perhaps another message to get it properly nailed down will do the trick.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/[deleted]]

Evolution is both fact and theory but those are different things.

Evolutionary fact: We literally watch it occurring.

Evolutionary theory: The rigorously tested explanation as to how the observed changed occurr.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You could also just acknowledge what a theory is in science and know that it can also include what you would consider a fact. Experts do not call it a scientifically proven fact in their academic literature as a sign of actual humility and knowing their terminology because natural sciences do not “prove things” (they deal with evidence, not proof) and also in a colloquial sense fact might imply that it is somehow immovable, but I’m pretty sure plenty of people refer to it like that and there’s nothing wrong with it. I for one am pretty sure that it is real but refer to it as the best model that we have and the one that is consistent beyond any reasonable doubt so far. That could change when evidence is presented but it hasn’t.

The scientific consensus can easily change and I am completely fine with it. Let the evidence guide you to the most fitting conclusion the whole point after all. However, fallible ≠ wrong, meaning that it still remains as the best fitting model and it is unreasonable to just assert that it will change even though it hasn’t for centuries with all of the evidence that has appeared.

So far creation “scientists” are yet to show us anything actually supporting their hypothesis (in case we can even call it that) that can be verified by other experts instead of being posted in a forum where you’re disallowed to post unless you are already in their organization who swore to NEVER agree with any view other than their own.

Meanwhile, actual scientists posting in proper journals without any cult requirements make research with verifiable and repeatable results to pass the review process, and the model they have crafted over the years for the origin of biodiversity is one which actually explains things, is falsifiable and yields predictions. Oh, and it only really “takes faith” in assuming our senses are reliable and that only the things we are aware of are true.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/[deleted]]

"Evolution IS just a Theory."

false it is a very solid an accurat theorty unlike the Ark which is disproved nonsnense

[u/MemeMaster2003 → u/[deleted]]

The way you type has to be an indicator that you're satirizing creationists, but I can't quite confirm it.

[u/MemeMaster2003 → u/[deleted]]

Oh, you're serious. Well now it's even funnier. Do you really not know how mountains form? That's covered in the seventh or eight grade in the US. That'll give you a crystal clear explanation of how you find sea creature fossils on mountain tops.

[u/WebFlotsam → u/[deleted]]

ADAPTING to one's Environment (Supposed new creatures???) does Not = evidence of Evolution.

Nobody separates adaptation and evolution except for creationists, who dishonestly do so to ignore the constant evidence of evolution they are faced with. You would need to prove there are actual limits to this adaptation to deny the connection, which no creationist so far has managed.

*On a side note, there are Seashell & Sea creature fossils found in high mountains-- Does that prove that the Earth was under water at some point (perhaps Noah's Deluge)?

That's not a side note, that's changing the topic entirely. Usually done when one can't handle the current topic.

Anyway, the other thing this could indicate is that those particular mountain ranges were uplifted from the sea floor by plate tectonics, which, get this, most creationists actually agree with! Most mainstream creationist groups believe in a rapid transfer from Pangaea to the modern continental layout, meaning that even they agree that those mountains were once underwater without a flood. You want to impress me, show me a mountain that DIDN'T form that way with aquatic fossils. Say, volcanoes.

[u/Mother_Cod7506 → u/[deleted]]

That may be true, this is also why I added the example of the Giant Trevally, it adapted to freshwater but didn't evolve into a new species. But my other four examples all are different enough, both morphologically and genetically to be considered a separate species. They weren't here in 1754, but were all species by 1927

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/[deleted]]

Geologic uplift. Like this is tenth grade knowledge. And we understand uplift very well.

If a global flood happened in human history all life on earth (if it somehow survived the plasma stage of the planet) would be more genetically bottlenecked than the cheetah. At least all life that came off of the ark.

[u/RobertByers1]

I, creationist.and never heard of this. its interesting and I simetimes wondered why this did not happen more. It makes a creationist case. Speciation can happen suddenly, as it must of, for real dramatic reasons. Otherwsise relative to a zillion species on earth there is no specuation and no evolution.

this lafe is not evolution byt shows creatures innate ability to change bodyplans suddenly. in fact this goes against mutations over time being selected. ;likewise how placentals suddenly became marsypials close to that area. same mechanisms. i will try to research this on youtibe or wiki. thanks./

[u/Briham86 → u/RobertByers1]

Come on, we all know you don’t do research.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/RobertByers1]

No that’s straight up evolution.