Evolution

[Achilles]

Creationists that open evolution threads with lines like "I like to argue" (without actually knowing anything about evolution) generally get what they ask for. So pretty please spare us the "poor me/strangling" rhetoric.

[M@RS]

I'm not giving the "poor me/strangling" rhetoric, I was saying calm down with the other guys that was all, (it's called sarcasm) I do know about evolution I talk to Scientists who come to the local Science Center about evolution and they can never answer me. Now to the subject, If the Big Bang really happened, (wasn't it spinning) then why are planets, moons, and even galaxies spinning backwards?

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080110-galaxy-winds-backwards.html

 

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:45as3YVUssQJ:forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html%3Bjsessionid%3D5722C849FBD5BBEB8CD90EA30A1A1180%3FtopicId%3D12052407%26sid%3D1%26pageNo%3D3+Galaxies+spin+backwards&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

http://media.www.nicsentinel.com/media/storage/paper1128/news/2008/03/24/Opinion/Billions.Of.Years-3278943.shtml

 

http://johnshoreland.com/2008/03/03/the-christians-achilles-heel-venus-spins-backwards/

 

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/creation_vs__evolution.htm

 

Look at this article

 

http://brickballoon.com/faith/millions-of-years.html

[ET Warrior]

Astronomy and Astrophysics have nothing to do with Evolution.

[M@RS]

Yes they do, Evolution starts with astronomy (in space) read the articles and you'll see how they do something to do with Evolution (it's science right, then you have to turn to other parts of science to answer the question of evolution)

[Achilles]

That's not something that you get to decide, friend.

 

Here's how it works in the real world:

Pre-big bang - Quantum physics

big bang - astronomy

formations of stars and planets - astronomy

orgins of life - chemistry

changes in lifeforms over time - biology (Theory of evolution)

 

These are completely separate fields of study, not inter-related in anyway.

[Rogue Nine]

M@RS, if I have to warn you again to keep within the scope of the discussion that you yourself started, then I will have no choice but to temp ban you for blatantly ignoring my warnings.

 

You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with evolution, then try to cover it up by tossing links left and right with little to no extrapolations and interpretations of your own. If you cannot argue without resorting to such methods, then it would be best if you did not participate at all, especially if you intend to have the links speak for you. The Senate is meant to foster debate between members and I see very little debate coming from you.

 

Shape up or ship out.

[M@RS]

I was going to end this "converstion" early anyways and I will shape up

 

Stop posting to say you will shape up and just do it. Posts like this contribute nothing to the discussion.

 

~9

[Rev7]

Playing semantic games won't gain you much ground here... Mutations and Defects are the same because the English language has been defined in such a way that they are literally talking about the same thing. If you want to redefine words to fit your preconceived notions then you'll have a hard time communicating with a lot of people.

 

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.

I am sorry. I was only trying to get to a point across. That point was that everybody has their own truths. But, I guess that that is a little irrelevant to the discussion, so I am sorry.

 

As for the latter-- Then why isn't evolution a law?

[Achilles]

I am sorry. I was only trying to get to a point across. That point was that everybody has their own truths. But, I guess that that is a little irrelevant to the discussion, so I am sorry.

Not true. Some things really are objective.

 

As for the latter-- Then why isn't evolution a law?

Different standards. Generally speaking, scientific Laws can be represented mathematically (i.e. Newton's Laws of Motion), something that cannot be done with an analytic explanation (such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution). Doesn't mean that Laws are better than Theories or that Theories are "less true" than Laws, only that they address different things in different ways.

[ET Warrior]

Then why isn't evolution a law?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

[M@RS]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?

[Achilles]

If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?

Because capital "T" Theory has a specific meaning in science which has completely different meaning than the lower case "t" theory which is used is lay language.

 

In the scientific method, facts go in one side and Theories come out the other (ideally). Since one is based on the other they are not in competition as you seem to suggest here.

[Rev7]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

I am a little confused then.

Fact noun.

 

-the quality of existing or of being real: actuality; truth.

 

-something known to exist or to have happened.

 

Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?

 

 

I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?

[Achilles]

Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?

We have. You see it every year when you get your flu vaccination. Once your body knows how to fight off a particular strain of flu, you'll never get it again. So why do you need to be vaccinated every year? Because the virus evolves. Virologists prepare multiple batches of potential vaccination each year based on how they predict the virus may evolve.

 

Or there's the Nylon eating bacteria which either indicate that some form of bacteria evolved to have an appetite for nylon after it's invention or that god decided to create some at some point. One of these possible explanations is science and the other is not. The one that is science satisfies a prediction made by the Theory of Evolution.

 

Of course, the only examples that we can observe in our lifetimes happen on this scale because bacteria create new generations much faster than we do.

 

For larger organisms we rely on paleontology, as outlined in one of my previous posts.

 

I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?

You're going to make Niner mad again.

[Mike Windu]

I am a little confused then.

 

 

Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?

 

 

I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?

 

Actually, we have. Microevolution is a very observable concept. Macroevolution is a natural continuation of the evolutionary theory.

 

Nowhere do we see forms appearing out of thin air.

 

As for the Shroud, it's offtopic. But my opinion is nothing other than that it's an oddity.

[narfblat]

I completely reject both evolution and creationism. I have ultimate personal proof that both are bogus. Here it is- You always have to urinate when your hands get wet! Rejection of evolution: Urinating close to your water source is a biological no-no and would have been a major detriment. Rejection of creationism: The whole thing is just really d@%n inconvenient (like when you are trying to wash the dishes and you are filling the sink but then have to stop to run to the bathroom for a number 1) so God must be jerk which means he isn't all-loving and perfect and therefore doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.

 

Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof. Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism). The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes). Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.

[Achilles]

Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.

Guided evolution (aka theistic evolution) is still evolution

 

EDIT: actually I'm wrong here. Theistic evolution does not account for random mutation or natural selection, so I guess it wouldn't qualify as "evolution" after all. You can believe in evolution (proper) and god at the same time, but that's probably more like deism.

 

Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof.

Wrong. Again, this argument is based on a complete lack of understanding of what "Theory" means within the context.

 

Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism).

My condolences for the quality of education that you received.

 

The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes).

Precisely right.

 

Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.

[narfblat]

Theory:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

 

I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it. If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that). So the only predicted outcome is a very different life-filled rock, but this would not prove that our biosphere is the result of evolution because our outcome was different. Yes that is very circular logic (bordering on mobius), but that is my point. So, if an experiment lacks the power to prove it, then the only other way to prove a theory is through complete observation of the whole process, and since there are no time machines that method is out.

 

To be proven, a theory must be testable. A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law. We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory. Any good scientist will tell you that. Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub:jab:). Or scientists like Stephen Gould (well, he would if he wasn't dead), and the list goes on.

 

I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.

[Achilles]

Theory:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Correct, or:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

Fact is that Theory is not synonymous with "hunch" or "guess" as you seem to think.

 

I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it.

You don't need to concede this because no one has ever stated that it is a Law. But then again, now you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of what a Law is in scientific use (and perhaps a larger lack of understanding about ToE in general).

 

If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that).

No it does not and if you are going to insist that it does, then you are going to need to provide a reputable source to support your assertion.

 

To be proven, a theory must be testable.

It must be lots of things, but yes, testable is one of them. The Theory of Evolution has been throughly tested.

 

A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law.

False. Direct observation is not the only means of testing.

 

We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory.

Gee, if "logic and evidence" don't get to be "proof" than what does?

 

Any good scientist will tell you that.

Right except that any good scientist that tells you this knows that Theory means something other than what you think it means.

 

Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub:jab:).

What's his name? What did he win the Prize for?

 

I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.

You're a biologist and yet you don't know the first thing about the scientific method, scientific nomenclature, the theory of evolution, etc?

 

The lies are starting to pile up, friend. I'd recommend stopping while you are ahead.

[M@RS]

I completely reject both evolution and creationism. I have ultimate personal proof that both are bogus. Here it is- You always have to urinate when your hands get wet! Rejection of evolution: Urinating close to your water source is a biological no-no and would have been a major detriment. Rejection of creationism: The whole thing is just really d@%n inconvenient (like when you are trying to wash the dishes and you are filling the sink but then have to stop to run to the bathroom for a number 1) so God must be jerk which means he isn't all-loving and perfect and therefore doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.

 

Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof. Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism). The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes). Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.

 

Actually Evolution is based on faith because there is only one type of evolution that is observable (micro-evolution) the others you need faith to believe in because they aren't observable if evolution were true we'd still have the Peking man and Lucys still walking around today, why don't we ever see them?

[Achilles]

Actually Evolution is based on faith because there is only one type of evolution that is observable (micro-evolution) the others you need faith to believe in because they aren't observable if evolution were true we'd still have the Peking man and Lucys still walking around today, why don't we ever see them?

Species go extinct all the time. The ones that are better adapted survive while those that aren't don't. If you're eager to see a organism that did share a recent ancestor with us and is still alive today, go visit a chimpanzee.

[Rev7]

We have. You see it every year when you get your flu vaccination. Once your body knows how to fight off a particular strain of flu, you'll never get it again. So why do you need to be vaccinated every year? Because the virus evolves. Virologists prepare multiple batches of potential vaccination each year based on how they predict the virus may evolve....

 

<snip>

 

You're going to make Niner mad again.

 

Well, I don't get a flu vaccination every year. I haven't gotten one in years. However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?

 

I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.

[Achilles]

However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?

Same thing.

 

I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.

When used incorrectly, yes it can be (i.e. trying to use carbon-14 dating for something older than 50,000 years will give inconsistent results). That's why scientists tend to use multiple dating methods when trying to determine something's age.

[M@RS]

Well, I don't get a flu vaccination every year. I haven't gotten one in years. However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?

 

I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.

 

 

I've never gotten one before...

 

and sure species go extinct but...the links evolved from monkeys and if a batch went extinct then a new batch of them would evolve from monkeys again...

[Rev7]

Same thing.

 

When used incorrectly, yes it can be (i.e. trying to use carbon-14 dating for something older than 50,000 years will give inconsistent results). That's why scientists tend to use multiple dating methods when trying to determine something's age.

 

Okay.

 

Do you think that life was just an accident?