Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'm talking about ANY discussion about Evolution. I'll need it put in it's proper context. Theory or fact? Any discussion about it.

missing the contextual use then

thats why im asking for specific examples

some could be about only the fact, some could be about the thoery, some could be about both and distinguish between the two

any just wont do, context needs detail

if i ask you does a plane fly? and you say yes .. your wrong im talking about the carpentry tool ..... see why context is required to give meaning to the word

if i ask do planes have motors? the answer to both is yes, airplanes make use of motors, electric planes(the carpentry tool) also make use of motors, but no the flat planes of geometry are just a line and have no motor

context needs detail so give me an example and we can discuss the context of its usage, other wise your playing pointless word games and we can play them all day if you like

id rather we used our time and replies more constructivly though how about you?

[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

OK will do.

Here's a conversation I made up to put it in context.

noobfun: You must agree with Evolution right?

B.A.C.: The theory or the fact?

noobfun: What do you mean?

B.A.C.: I mean the theory or the fact.

noobfun: Well put it in context.

B.A.C.: You asked if I believed in Evolution. I asked you the theory or the fact?

See what I mean. I'm asking a simple question. The theory or the fact. Do I believe in Evolution? The theory or the fact? Is my question.

That's the context I mean.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

OK here's where I stand:

I believe in the Theory of Micro-evolution I believe there is abundant evidence and hard facts to categorically say that MiE is factual and define theory as; coherent group of general and established propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

MiE is a fact
the Theory of MiE explains the fact of MiE.

I do NOT believe in the Theory of Macro-Evolution. I believe the evidence is extremely soft to warrant a definition of theory as; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural ergo its still a hypothesis

MaE is not fact
The Theory of MaE does not explain MaE

reply to post by ohh_pleasee


I'm not going to delude myself and pretend that I know the answers to the universe and beyond like some scientists or religious people do, but it doesn't hurt to think outside the box. For example here's one theory that actually allows both creationism and evolution to coexist.

Some scientists theorize that we live in a computer simulation of sorts. If true then it's quite plausible that the world is only 6000 years old, simply because that's when the simulation was first turned on. The dinosaurs didn't really exist as flesh & bones, only as fossils as they are simply a creation of the simulation. From the moment the simulation was turned on evolution also came into effect and to this day animals continue to evolve.

I have no proof that this theory is actually true as just like many other beliefs, it's just a theory and nothing more, but it's certainly a possibility nonetheless.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

OK will do.

Here's a conversation I made up to put it in context.

except theers no context

theres nothing to determine if i mean fact or thoery becasue no tatement has been made to give it context it as ambiguous as 'its only a theory'

shal we try and give it some real context?

noobfun: You must agree with Evolution right?

B.A.C.: The theory or the fact?

noobfun: that it explains changes in breeding populations (here context happens somthing to give the word meaning, 'it explains' .. so this is theory)

noobfun: that Lemki's e-coli devoloped a cvit+ primary feeding mechanism(here context happens somthing was observed.. so this is fact its somthing that has happened not an explenation of what happened)

lets revise the old post and find another example shall we?

------------------------------------------------------
let try this with a few examples

if i say

i caught the plane just in time and flew to L.A.

airplane = plane (shortened relaxed usage)

theory of evolution = evolution (shortened relaxed usage)

so evolution can be used instead of the full length 'theory of evolution' this can also be shortened to an anacronym 'ToE'

things can be shortened and carry exactly the same meaning

'is not' becomes isn't
'airplane' becomes plane
'evolutionary development' becomes evo devo
'origin of species by natural selection' becomes origins
'theory of evolution' becomes evolution

with me thus far?

---------------------------------------

ill asume the answers yes and move on to contextual meanings

same example

i caught the plane just in time and flew to L.A.

a) am i saying i boarded an aeroplane and used the still correct shortened variant?

or am i saying

b)i caught a piece of carpentry equipment just in time and traveled to L.A. threw the air on it?

now im pretty sure here everyone i going for option a) unless they are aiming for cheap lulz

depending on the context usage

plane can mean

a heavier then air mode of travel that flys and uses wings to provide lift

a piece of carpentry equipment used to smooth wood

a flat surface in geometry that travels in relation to a fixed point

the context it is used gives it its desired meaning


evolution is a fact (contextual meaning is the observed change/s within a population over time)

evolution is a theory (contextually referencing the correct and usable shortened form of thoery of evolution)


the last one in a sentance would appear somthing like

evolution is a thoery that explains observed changes in the frequency of alleles over time within breeding populations


the problem would occur if someone was silly enough to state emfatically

"the theory of evolution is a fact" as they are crossing contexts

or if the were bieng ambiguouse with usage, for instance

evolution is a fact, evolution decribes changes within bredding populations over time

both of those are incorrect one mixes contexts the other is ambiguous enough to be decieving to anyone with little knowledge of the subject

in a similar fashion to the infamous "evolution is only a theory" it relies on the ambiguity between

theory "and idea i had sat on the jon" and scientific thoery "a viable accurate tested explenation of the available facts that can be used to make acurate preictions about past present or future events as yet unknown"

so it would be instances of context merging or ambiguity that would be the issue not the use of the word evolution

which is why time and time again we have stated

evolution is fact
evolution is thoery

but not at the same time or in the same context,

becasue we are differenciatiing between them, now go back and check the science links you gave ..and i mean the science ones not the ones we flagged as creationist mumbojumbo like the dishonesty intitute links and see how they obviously explain both how it is fact and thoery but in differing contexts

so if you have sources from scientific institutes that are ambigeous or cross contexts then you may be on to somthing

if the differenciate then they are using the word corretly in differeing contexts and making the neceary effort to differenciate between contexts
---------------------------------------

so go find an example of a webpage talking about evolution and lets look at the contextual meaning for the uses of evolution that they make


[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by B.A.C.



your example for some reason has me asking you to give me context for what im saying .... if im saying it id know the context it was meant in and would elaborate not just ask you to tell me what i mean ... the examples nonsensicle

reply to post by noobfun


For me to speak of Evolution with you on ANY point. Will require me to ask you if we are speaking of the fact or the theory.

You've chosen to give the word 2 meanings. If you want it to have 2 meanings depending on context, then explain the meaning for me before we discuss.

That's why this thread was made.

Evolution the fact does NOT describe changes in breeding population. Those changes are facts. Facts don't describe. This is theory you are speaking of here.

To clear up meanings and such.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

For me to speak of Evolution with you on ANY point. Will require me to ask you if we are speaking of the fact or the theory.

so you have spent the entire thread differenciating between the meaning of thoery and fact but are unable to put that to practicle use?

You've chosen to give the word 2 meanings. If you want it to have 2 meanings depending on context,

well its had mulitpul meanings for at least 20 years that i know of within biology so i was far to young to decide it all by myself and convert the world to that view point

infact id go so far as to say probabily 90+% of the usage of the word evolution with respect to biological evolution are used in the shorted relaxed form to mean theory

The Basics

1. What is evolution?

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations.

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. [url]http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.pbs.org... it gives an explenation of what it is not a specific observation ....explenation = theory

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next.

[url]http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html again an explenation so that = thoery

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits.

en.wikipedia.org...

again an explenation of what happens = thoery

try it your self stick "what is evolution" in your search engine of choice and im guesing it will take a while to find evolution used in respect to a fact and not an explenation of what happens

Evolution the fact does NOT describe changes in breeding population.

now your getting it

Originally posted by noobfun
noobfun: that it explains changes in breeding populations (here context happens somthing to give the word meaning, 'it explains' .. so this is theory)

Those changes are facts.

the speific changes are facts, african elephants tusks are decreasing in average size thats a fact it only states what is and does not try to provide an explenation for how or why,

the tusk sizes are decreasing due to poaching and only shorter tusk males survive to breed meaning the variance rates of tusk length with each succesive generation has a shorter length as a starting point which is a result of natural selection (predation but by unnatural means). This is an explenation of the observed fact ... explenation of facts = thoery ..well in the lax none scienetific usage you presented for the discussion

A "Theory" is a plausible way of explaining verifiable observations (facts). en.wikipedia.org... That was simple wasn't it?

facts don't describe.

thats why i tagged it as thoery usage

This is theory you are speaking of here.

now youve got it

now if we look at the second example i gave

Originally posted by noobfun

noobfun: that Lemki's e-coli devoloped a cvit+ primary feeding mechanism(here context happens somthing was observed.. so this is fact its somthing that has happened not an explenation of what happened)

now lets compare to your deffintion of fact

A "Fact" is a verifiable observation. en.wikipedia.org... Another simple one

it only states what happened not why or how .. so has NO explenation attached = fact

see not all that hard by jove i think he's cracked it


[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by B.A.C.




I like your mind!! Very clever and you have allowed us all a great opportunity to use our heads and consider what it is that is being fed to us! Way to keep the minds thinking!

[edit on 8-3-2009 by justamomma]

Originally posted by noobfun
infact id go so far as to say probabily 90+% of the usage of the word evolution with respect to biological evolution are used in the shorted relaxed form to mean theory

You notice I said 90% say The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

This co-relates directly with what you just said about 90% of them using relaxed meanings.

My point and yours agree completely in this case. That's what this whole thread is about. The true meaning, or the "relaxed" meaning of the word Evolution. Our figures agree perfectly, perfectly.

You have summed up this whole thread for me. I just wish we could have agreed on this earlier. LOL

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

I like your mind!! Very clever and you have allowed us all a great opportunity to use our heads and consider what it is that is being fed to us! Way to keep the minds thinking!

[edit on 8-3-2009 by justamomma]

Thanks! I just wanted to clarify the meaning of a few words that are sometimes used incorrectly or in their "relaxed" version.

I think some people are getting my point now. It wasn't meant to disprove Evolution or to disprove The Theory of Evolution. It was just meant to clarify the meaning of a few words.

Thanks Again.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You notice I said 90% say The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

now i didnt say that now did i?

lets look at what i say

infact id go so far as to say probabily 90+% of the usage of the word evolution with respect to biological evolution are used in the shorted relaxed form to mean theory

so over 90% of the usage of the word evolution is in the acceptable relaxed usage to mean thoery

so not saying fact = thoery at all,

but is saying evolution = theory of evolution

remember the context value? short memory or a little intelectual dishonesty with word switching?

My point and yours agree completely in this case. That's what this whole thread is about. The true meaning, or the "relaxed" meaning of the word Evolution. Our figures agree perfectly, perfectly.

the figures agree perfectly but in the figures are for different things

90% of all extant bird species fly
90% of all bird species that ever lived are extinct

figures match, facts are VERY different

unless your bieng intentionally dishonest in your deffintion switching

so no we still dont agree because ive shown saying evolution = thoery is accurate honest and a much more common usage(and always has been) to reference the thoery, then the fact

so will you now be honest enough to admit using evolution in context to mean theory is different to stating a thoery is a fact?

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You notice I said 90% say The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

now i didnt say that now did i?

lets look at what i say

Is he being disingeuous again?

Apparently he's just trying to fix science, as it confuses him and he finds it wyrd. He's achieving that by putting science right on ATS, lol.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by noobfun


This argument has been argued. Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. If you think Evolution is a theory then you think The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

We go in circles.

Originally posted by melatonin

Is he being disingeuous again?

yes but im wquite pleaed with the results 1 1/2-2 pages of him agreeing then suddenly having a mass turn around and making things up again .. just shows anyone reaing the ast few pages his little agenda

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. If you think Evolution is a theory then you think The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

no i think evolution has been used as a relaxed term for theory of evolution for longer then it has been used in regards to evolution bieng a fact

and bieng used as a relaxed usage for theory is also much more prevelant

so evolution has meant theory for longer and is more commmon in usage

so you saying evolution is fact means

YOUR saying the theory of evolution is fact .... your the one pushing the conspiracies agenda!

and the rest of understand contextual english language

We go in circles.

no youve pulled a dishonest u-turn to try and prove a point thats dishonest ...me im still where i was in the first place accurate honest





[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This argument has been argued. Evolution is a fact. Not a theory. If you think Evolution is a theory then you think The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

We go in circles.

The fact of evolution is not a theory and the theory of evolution is not a fact, but evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Just as strawberry ice cream is not vanilla ice cream and vanilla ice cream is not strawberry ice cream, but ice cream in general may consist of strawberry or vanilla.

Simple.

Read this:
www.talkorigins.org...

It explains it in much greater detail than I care to go into.

Originally posted by noobfun
no i think evolution has been used as a relaxed term for theory of evolution for longer then it has been used in regards to evolution bieng a fact...... and bieng used as a relaxed usage for theory is also much more prevelant....so evolution has meant theory for longer and is more commmon in usage

No you're clearly wrong again. Evolution as fact depends on Natural Selection and Genetic Drift.

Natural Selection - came BEFORE the discovery of evolution as fact and is from Darwin's "The Origin of Species, etc".

Genetic Drift wasn't observed until after the Theory of Evolution either.

So Evolution wasn't a fact yet. The theory was around before the fact was.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Are you serious? I'm not even getting into this discussion again.

Google "fact and theory" and show me ANY other theory that is associated with this idea.

Read my posts in this thread. I discuss my reasons for not believing it is a fact AND a theory. I will agree with the concept of it being a fact OR a theory though.

You are playing word games. Of course theory and fact are different things in the scientific sense. And yet, evolution is a as factually and scientifically true as our understanding of gravity, germs and the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas evolution's main challengers- creationism and "Intelligent design" are nowhere nearly as solidly based and do NOT even rise to the level of theory; therefore they should NOT be taught in science classes.

So talk all you want about evolution as "just" a theory. It still... it therefore justifies it being taught as science whereas it excludes creationism.

Originally posted by TrevorALan
You are playing word games. Of course theory and fact are different things in the scientific sense. And yet, evolution is a as factually and scientifically true as our understanding of gravity, germs and the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas evolution's main challengers- creationism and "Intelligent design" are nowhere nearly as solidly based and do NOT even rise to the level of theory; therefore they should NOT be taught in science classes.

So talk all you want about evolution as "just" a theory. It still... it therefore justifies it being taught as science whereas it excludes creationism.

I never once made the claim The Theory of Evolution is "just" a theory.

I made the claim "The Theory of Evolution isn't a fact". Evolution is a fact that the Theory explains.

Sure teach The Theory of Evolution in school. Teach Evolution as a fact in school. Just be clear to the students about whether you are talking about the theory or the fact. That's all.