Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Mainstream science, itself, is a religion

Hmm. What is your definition of religion? Any belief?

Suppose I believe the Thomas Jefferson helped write the US Declaration of Independence? Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that burning hydrogen and oxygen will create water? Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that free markets are the best economic system. Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that uranium 235 can be fissioned with explosive results. Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that the world was created in 6 days by an all powerful being. Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that intelligent aliens - a product of evolution on another planet - also created life on this planet by seeding it with DNA based building blocks and primitive cells. Is that religion?

Suppose I believe that Fox News is the best source for objective and fair journalism. Is that religion?

In what sense do you believe that mainstream science is religion?

I suspect that what you really mean is that "science provides a worldview whose explanations of the world overlap in territory with what some religions seek to explain". The overlap in territory like "where did humans come from" makes it feel like a religion to you.

For a long time, the only competition with some religion's explanations was some OTHER religions explanations, so a habit arose of thinking that any other explanation must be a religious one.

Why others disagree with you is this: to them the very essence of science is defined by its methodology, and that methodology is very unlike the approaches of all religions. As it turns out, the methodology of science can lead it to propose its own explanations for SOME of the things that religions sometimes seek to explain - there is some overlap in area of application. So science can *feel* like another competing religion. But at heart, it really isn't - because it's tools and techniques are very different.

Those that understand the methodology of science can see how different that is from religion (even if they are also religious believers as well). Those who do not understand science may confuse the two.

Saying that science is a religion is like saying that my cellphone is a bird, because birds make chirps and my cellphone makes chirps so they overlap in the auditory space. That ignores some pretty big differences in HOW they make those sounds. Saying the science is a religion overlooks some pretty big difference in how their belief formation systems work.

I want to note that there are also things about religion which science does not seek to explain and vice versa; the overlap in territory is only partial. I do not mean to make either approach to knowledge the superior one here, just to distinguish them.

reasoner

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

Is this a setup too

I will take that challenge.

Ivory poachers in Africa have provided a perfect demonstration of how
evolution works. Poachers kill only those elephants that bear large,
valuable tusks. As a result they have allowed elephants with smaller tusks ,or those lacking tusks, to multiply.

A survey conducted in Uganda's Queen Elizabeth National Park found
that up to 30 percent of the elephants had no tusks, up from one
percent in the 1930s, and many of the rest had greatly reduced tusks.
The same trend is happening all over Africa, as a result of selective
culling by poachers.

Essentially, poachers are acting as one of the three pressures that lead to evolution. These three pressures are environmental, sexual, and in this case, predatory.

www.environmentalgraffiti.com...

I am pretty this example of evolution meets your requirements of being a "fact" and "verifiable." I can only hope you are man enough to admit when you are wrong.

Slow down a minute here. I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong.

Let me show you an example of how this is flawed logic.

Let's say there are 3 types of wolves in a certain forest, and only them three types exist. One type is Black, One type is White, One type is a mixture of Black & White.

Now, a certain people consider the White wolves to have exceptionally beautiful fur, so they hunt them. Thereby, slowly decreasing their numbers until the majority of the wolves in the forest are Black, the minority are now White, or Mixed.

This doesn't mean that the Black wolves have evolved to protect themselves from the hunters. This is an example of forced selective breeding.

Follow me?

I definitely follow you. However, what you are forgetting is that my example only took 150 years, to truly evolve into a different species, one that could not produce viable offspring while mating with its original species, would take at least ten times as long. Even though this is the case, my example clearly demonstrates one of the mechanisms that makes evolution possible and thus proves its existence. Believe me, in a few thousand years, if humans are still around, we will have witnessed many examples of evolution.

Secondly, you act like "forced selective breeding" is not evolution, that is basically what it is. Essentially organisms are "forced" to breed through the three pressures I mentioned before. I could further explain what I mean illustrating this process in conjuction with the three pressures if you like.

Also, I would not use a dog breed as your example. The dog genome is particularly suited to to producing many breeds of different colors, sizes, and characteristics. In fact, it is one of the only species on the planet that has this ability. In addition, dog breeding represents, in a way, evolution by means of sexual selection. The real difference is it is another species, humans, who are selecting the breeding candidates. Were humans to one day vanish from earth, with in a few thousand years all of the dog breeds would blend back together and essentially become wolves. The reason this would happen is that many of the characteristics we find desirable in dogs, small size, scrunchy faces, odd colors, floppy ears, etc., would be useless or a hindrance in the wild, thus making them less likely to produce offspring. This is how evolution works, the individuals who produce the most offspring pass along what ever genes made their offspring production more successful in the first place.

Thirdly, I would like to address a previous statement you made. You stated that presence of single cell organisms today disproved evolution because "they should have evolved into something by now." This represents one of the most common misunderstanding about evolution. When one organism evolves into another, it does not mean that the original species ceases to exist. Evolution is not a straight line from "lower" species to "higher" species. Essentially, there is no "best" mouse or "best" cat. There are only mice or cats that are best suited for their environment. Evolution is a tree with many branches. Just because the tree creates a new branch, it does not necessarily mean that the original branch dies.

Lastly, I will leave you with this thought; God and evolution are not exclusive of each other. In fact, I believe that evolution is part of Gods "grand design." I mean you tell me, the design of a perfect system that only requires the basic building blocks of life to create the plethora of life forms on this planet and at the same time leaves no proof of the existence of its designer, thus requiring faith, sure sounds like God to me. Personally, by denying evolution I feel that you run the risk of possibly denying the true genius of God's grand design. In the end, when you stand before God, I would be prepared to apologize for insulting the most beautiful aspect of his creation. However, do not fret, I am sure he will forgive you, it is not your fault that you received flawed, outdated information from a questionable source.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Luckily your beliefs don't change reality

Neither do yours.

Luckily I don't rely on beliefs. I rely on proven science

The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

Wrong. There are literally thousands of examples of transitional fossils. Your failure to learn about them doesn't make them any less real.

Why are you getting so antagonistic? Have I offended you in some way?

Not at all.
Deny ignorance.

If you could undeniably PROVE evolution, you'd have the Nobel Prize tomorrow, big guy. So don't pat yourself on the back just yet.

The massive amounts of factual data show the theory of evolution is correct. There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise or someone would have won the nobel prize for disproving the mountains of data FOR evolution

Also, I would never pat myself on the back as it would be taking credit for all the hard work scientists have put forth to provide proof of evolution.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by jfj123]

Again, it hasn't been proven.

It is not fact, it is a theory with some evidence to back it up.

I'm glad you're not a Judge in a court of law, with your definition of fact, the prisons would burst.

A person going against science winning the Nobel Prize? What reality do you live in?

Thousands of examples of Transitional Fossils is there? And you actually claim to have done research on this, and say I haven't?

This is why I don't put any weight in what you're saying, YOU haven't done the research, you are relying on debunking websites.

I know of possibly 50 examples of what scientists claim are transitional.

List 51 for me.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Ten to the millionth power of years will NEVER allow nature enough time to produce life from non living matter.

You are welcome to that belief, but it's hard to find any evidential support for it.

This is the double standard. You believe that you can make such a statement as an absolute without need for any credible evidence, yet demand "proof" rather than mere overwhelming evidence from science.

Here's my question to you. Suppose there is a God who is omniscient and omnipotent, capable of all things. Suppose that God chose to create a universe wherein life could evolve after he set the stage carefully. Are you saying that God Himself is completely and totally *incapable* of creating a universe in which life would evolve from non-living matter?

From what authority do you claim to be able to trump God's omnipotence? Are you going to cite scientific or mathematical reasons that even God Himself couldn't create a universe where life evolves on its own, from the materials he set in place?

So maybe God created the Big Bang, and God initiated evolution because in fact God WAS capable of making a universe where living matter could evolve from non-living. Now prove to us why God couldn't have done that.

reasoner

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The theory of evolution does not try to explain the universe or how life originated. Those are completely different theories and fields of study.
cheers

Hmm, it seems that the debunking replies have been structured not with evidence against (and I say most not all!) evolution but with questions like, "How come..." and "Why is there...", these replies simply show what research is yet to be carried out which is what science is all about carrying out research with tests and combining these tests with evidence. Similarly, these replies show one reason for Religion's own existence - to explain the unknown with nothing but blind belief and no evidence.

(This is my first post)

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?

What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

Answer these questions for me.

God Bless

This is incorrect. Generational evolution have been found in bacterium and viruses. And has been observed, i.e. HIV Is Evolving To Evade Human Immune Responses

Also, such predictions have been made and met. For instance the fused chromosome that set us apart from other primates. That is Chromosome pair two. And it is irrefutable evidence of an event predicted to have happened by evolutionary theory.

Origin Of The Species

Charles Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin: "the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible"

Feasible? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, feasible doesn't cut it, doesn't reek of proof to me.

Like I stated before, lots of holes in the theory, though there is lots of good stuff too.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, it hasn't been proven.
It is not fact, it is a theory with some evidence to back it up.

This seems to hinge somewhat on what you mean by "proof".

Clearly, you don't believe the evidence is substantial enough to constitute "proof" in your eyes. I suspect that this means in effect that proof is anything that you are no longer able to personally disbelieve in. As long as you can maintain your disbelief, it isn't proven (to you). That's one perfectly workable way to use the word (of many possible ways), but not a very useful to our discussion.

Let's check here. What are about a dozen things that you DO consider "proven"? Has there ever in the history of the world been anything which you might have considered "proven" but which later turned out not to be true?

I would assert that there is no such thing as absolute proof, period. I've seen magicians tricks that seemed absolutely convincing, of thing which were not true. People can be fooled. Contrary facts are sometimes later discovered. New and unanticipated mechanisms are also discovered. Nothing is absolutely provable, such that there is absolutely no chance of any mistake.

(You mention courts of law - and we know that reason and investigation has shown the things like guilt "proven" in court sometimes turn out to be counterfactual when more information comes out. Legal "proof" just means a judge and/or jury buys the case strongly enough, not that it's actually thereby inherently true)

So, absent absolute "proof", what do we have?

Things which have a tremendous amount of evidence and which are considered very unlikely to turn out to be untrue still exist.

The earth and the sun mutually orbit around their common center of gravity with orbital radii inversely proportional to their disparate masses, as perturbed by other planets, and that common center is within the radius of the sun's visible surface (albeit not at the center). Essentially, almost all relevant scientists today are convinced that the earth's orbit around the sun is much more significant than the sun's orbit around the earth. It would take a lot of counterevidence, and probably some alternative explanation that better explains current evidence as well as new, to change that conclusion.

Evolution is fairly far along that process. While nothing is ever absolutely proven, the mass of evidence for evolution is enough that an alternative would need quite a strong argument, and is unlikely.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
A person going against science winning the Nobel Prize?
What reality do you live in?

Huh? The question was whether you could (scientifically) prove that the theory of evolution does not fit with the evidence. The assertion was that such a scientific proof would be revolutionary and deserve the highest scientific honors. That's using science, not going against it.

Are you saying that your own arguments are anti-scientific? Or that you think you can disprove the theory of evolution via scientific means? If the latter, then there's no contradiction in receiving the Nobel prize. If the former, then it would be good for you to own that your argument is with all of science, not just with the theory of evolution.

So which universe are you in? Do you think that anti-evolutionary arguments themselves are pro-science and thus nobel prize worthy, or anti-science?

reasoner

reply to post by reasoner



A religion is a systematic expression of personal convictions.

None of those things disproved my argument.

It's a religion because every new theory has to be blessed by the clergy. If it doesn't support the existing model, then you have to engage in completely unrelated things like political maneuvering to get it accepted. This is how "the scientific consensus" got anthropogenic global warming to be accepted.

Besides that, compounding theories on top of theories is tricky. The pharmaceutical industry has lots of stories about that.

Originally posted by reasoner
This seems to hinge somewhat on what you mean by "proof".

Clearly, you don't believe the evidence is substantial enough to constitute "proof" in your eyes. I suspect that this means in effect that proof is anything that you are no longer able to personally disbelieve in. As long as you can maintain your disbelief, it isn't proven (to you). That's one perfectly workable way to use the word (of many possible ways), but not a very useful to our discussion.

Let's check here. What are about a dozen things that you DO consider "proven"? Has there ever in the history of the world been anything which you might have considered "proven" but which later turned out not to be true?

I would assert that there is no such thing as absolute proof, period. I've seen magicians tricks that seemed absolutely convincing, of thing which were not true. People can be fooled. Contrary facts are sometimes later discovered. New and unanticipated mechanisms are also discovered. Nothing is absolutely provable, such that there is absolutely no chance of any mistake.

Pull out a dictionary and look the word "proof" up, that's what I mean. No need for a wall of text.

(You mention courts of law - and we know that reason and investigation has shown the things like guilt "proven" in court sometimes turn out to be counterfactual when more information comes out. Legal "proof" just means a judge and/or jury buys the case strongly enough, not that it's actually thereby inherently true)

So, absent absolute "proof", what do we have?

What we have is Reasonable Doubt.

Huh? The question was whether you could (scientifically) prove that the theory of evolution does not fit with the evidence. The assertion was that such a scientific proof would be revolutionary and deserve the highest scientific honors. That's using science, not going against it.

Are you saying that your own arguments are anti-scientific? Or that you think you can disprove the theory of evolution via scientific means? If the latter, then there's no contradiction in receiving the Nobel prize. If the former, then it would be good for you to own that your argument is with all of science, not just with the theory of evolution.

So which universe are you in? Do you think that anti-evolutionary arguments themselves are pro-science and thus nobel prize worthy, or anti-science?

What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.

Originally posted by reasoner
Evolution is fairly far along that process. While nothing is ever absolutely proven, the mass of evidence for evolution is enough that an alternative would need quite a strong argument, and is unlikely.

reasoner

Exactly.


Evolution does not contradict faith in a higher being.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.

But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]

Originally posted by jrod

Originally posted by reasoner
Evolution is fairly far along that process. While nothing is ever absolutely proven, the mass of evidence for evolution is enough that an alternative would need quite a strong argument, and is unlikely.

reasoner

Exactly.


Evolution does not contradict faith in a higher being.

Strict evolutionists believe that humans evolved from simians, which directly contradicts the biblical creation story.

Originally posted by B.A.C.


Pull out a dictionary and look the word "proof" up, that's what I mean. No need for a wall of text.

To jump in here for a moment, the dictionary defines proof as:


1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules to sequentially derived conclusions.
3. A convincing or persuasive demonstration

To the majority in this thread, all of the noted scientific research studies constitute sufficient proof of the theory of evolution.

To you, they seem to constitute a minor validation of a fraction of the theory, but since there are still gaps to be filled in, the bulk of the theory should be regarded as a fiction or an extremely speculative proposition.

What we have is Reasonable Doubt.

No, what you have is reasonable doubt. Which, to the rest of us, looks like an unreasonable attempt to discredit a body of scientific work with a bunch of hot air.

We don't know at all what you believe, because you have put forth nothing but denial and contradictions. You've repeatedly declined to share your personal stand on the matter, to the point of playing quite coyly about what you have or haven't said. Yet, you seem to feel perfectly justified in throwing out an entire school of thought because of perceived gaps.

Your approach is the antithesis of science, and borders on the worship of ignorance. Where you see gaps that discredit the entirety of the theory, scientists see an opportunity to explain the unknown. If the world operated on the principles of logic you demonstrate here, we'd still be in the dark ages thinking that the cure for headaches was to drill a hole in the skull to release evil spirits.

Eventually, science will fill in the gaps that have you in such a disbelieving lather. And when that time comes, your great-great-great-great-great-granchildren will laugh at the silly and primitive beliefs of their forefather.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


NO! NO! NO!

Humans did NOT evolve from simians!!!

What part of other's posts do you bother to read? Just what you think is correct, because it fits your narrow view?

Humans did NOT evolve from simians....repeat with me....Humans DID NOT evolve from simians. There is a common ancestor, well in the past.

Tree, branches...ring any bells? Thought not.

It's like saying cows evolved from Buffalo.....there is a genetic link, but there are branches, way back.

Pfffft! I may as well be explaining algebra to my cat! Likely get the same result......

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.

I believe that evolution is possible, but simians evolving into humans is just ridiculous. No species has made that jump

Are you sure of that?

How can you be?

It is possible that our planet has supported more then one Sentient species.

The fossil record is only a tiny percentage of the life on this planet. If Humans were to go "poof" right now, in 65 million years Earths next custodians will probably have no inkling we were ever here.

What you label as "Ridiculous" as I label as "Truth".

reply to post by weedwhacker


With all due respect...No, you aren't getting what I am asking. I would really love it if you would go back and re-read my post, if you care to.

I am not differentiating between humans and any other living thing.

As I said before, I have no problem with what most of you speak and at times; preach. But again, how much are we blinded by fairy dust because it is what we WANT to believe verses what actually adds up more logically?

If evolution or the start of life is more viable with the concept of a being already established with consciousness, then why fight it? Is it bias stopping it, or credited evidence? This is what I examine with all that is said by those who try to insist that a higher being is not necessary. I ask; "Why is it so important?"

Thanks!

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You're right, belief in the big bang and belief in God take an equal amount of faith. Neither side can PROVE the existence of either.

That's why arguments about this are futile.

If you follow simple logic, something cannot come from nothing.

Therefore if I say there is a God, you can say where did he come from?, or if you say the Big Bang happened, I'd say where did the matter come from?

It's almost a paradox.

No they don't actually. Mainly because we have evidence for the big bang. We looked into space and saw it was expanding. This was one of the first observations and pieces of evidence for the big bang. Of course, we have found more evidence for it now.

You cannot compare the two. Science does claim that everything came from a big bang, but it was only meant to explain everything that came after, not before. We don't have a plausible theory as to what happened before it or how it came into existence. There in lies the difference between science and religion - science can say "I don't know" and continue researching until one day we have enough data to answer these questions with confidence.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

jesus christ was a human

all known bibles were written by man

every religious book was written by man in their native language

every religious book has been edited by humans to reflect what they want/beleive

evolution... humans used sharp stones tied to sticks for thousands of years and then alll of a sudden we broke that barrier and invention took off....


evolution.... sperm meets egg.... they are encoded with DNA.... they randomly select pieces of DNA from each side and start growing based on the choices made.... BAM! comes a new person.... better.... faster..... smarter than the previous.

every olympics we get faster we get stronger we get smarter

every year new inventions are made... we are getting more creative.

I cant show you a brand new species because they dont pooof out of thin air.. and evolution says they dont poof out of thin air.

SMALL changes occur over millions of years... meaning to find the "missing link" for humans is gunna be tough....


think about it..... we find how many ancient mammal fossils a year? not many...

so out of all the mammal fossils maybe a few every year is a homosapien...

so a few skeletons/fossils of homosapiens are discovered every year

then take into account we need one from year x.... out of hundreds of millions of years....

we have found many different types of possible ancestors for homosapiens... but the gaps are millions of years in between them... so even if we find one more in between two that we have.... its gunna have gaps..

we cant find a fossil for every damn year we existed. but we can show you enough to know that it is HIGHLY possibly and most likely true...

now is it possible evolution is entirely wrong.... yes.... is it possible everything just exists and time is a human made concept? yes

is it possible we live inside another living organism.... sure


but the best theory (and for good reason and substantial testing and mounds of fossils that are very closely related) is evolution


Could god have created us all and everything around us and plugged in evolution to happen... yes

could god still exist and the bible is horse crap? yeap

i think god/creator exists and i think the bible was made to make money and control the people...


RELIGION AND CHURCH are two different things

religion is beleiving in something

church is a place where they tell u what to beleive

church made the bible.. and/or used it to control the people... to wage wars... to control wealth...

the bible is a good thing and teaches people to do right... not to murder and all that jazz...

but people wrote it.... maybe good people.... with good ideas... but people wrote the bible

god may still exist... talk to him in prayer.... follow the basic human laws... and do good out there!

back to evolution...

have we discovered all species? no.... so how do we know if one we discover isnt a new species? ANSWER THAT QUESTION