|
|
|
|
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:51:52 PM |
if evolution did not exist when did wild poodles roam the earth? answer is never. we bred em. As for the theory of evolution. From what I have read, and I have not read that extensivly. The odds of evolution going from non living matter to current evolutionary level of man would be about the same odds as hitting the lottery three weeks running with the same numbers. possible but im not taking the bet.
In additon to that when it comes to scientific proof we can neither prove divine creation or random selection as the cause for life as we cant go question god on how he did it. nor can we take a rock and make it turn into a man. bottom line it cant be observed and cant be replicated. therefore scientifically speaking creation or evolution must always .
Umm, human beings have changed "natural selection" and thrown off evolution. We can act as God and decide what lives and what dies.
We can introduce animals into difference ecosystems and have them destroy the land and kill on lesser beings.
Evolution occurs in different climates and ecosystems. Try living at the north pole or sahara dessert, and let me know if God or evolution will let you live or not. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:59:09 PM |
Sorry to burst your bubble but I was not born in Texas and was only in Texas for about 7 years, ..Most would probably consider me a Californian. Yet where I hang or hung my hat has nothing to do with the matter.
That is why I say it is better to attack the Post rather than the Poster...You get a lot more mileage.
Both Creationsism and Evolution are considered THEORIES
As pointed out by some on here and other places there are some very good THEORIES behind what some call Creationism and some call Intelligent Design. There are also some very good THEORIES behind what some call Evolution.
That is why I am for the teaching of both THEORIES.
Since there is a wide variation in the meaning of Theory I decided not to include a defination of theory in my post. It looks like the word Theory would make a good debate in itself.
You don't understand the definition of a scientific theory. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 4:10:21 PM |
creationism is NOT a theory. Its not even a stance. Without evolution it cannot stand on its own.
Actually the exact same thing could be said in reverse. Evolution can't stand on its own without creationism either.
100% versus 0%, how do you get a great discussion out of that?
Cyke, when you stop knowing it all and question a few things you'd be surprised what discussion might follow. Philosophically it's vastly more productive to encourage investigation in both fields. It takes about ten seconds to get a grip on evolutionary theory. A few field trips, some disection labs and the average twelve year old is pretty much done. I'd be much more interested in having my kid think about the more in depth questions in life like how you evolve something from nothing. Creative thought trumps theoretical knowledge in my books.
Am I being persnickety?
Kinda. More bossy than anything though. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 4:11:14 PM | Do you mean in science everything is a hypothesis until it meets strict standards of observational evidence and then it becomes either a theory or a law?
That isn't what I was getting at. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a proved theory in the sense that the theory is absolutely correct because theories & laws are based on facts called observations of phenomena. Only if ALL observations have been made is the theory certainly true. Since it's impossible to observe all of a particular phenomena, a theory can't be considered proved (in the logical sense of irrefutability).
I hate to keep going back to the "crows" example, but for simplicity's sake it works for illustration.
If you see a crow and observe that it is black, you might guess (hypothesize) that all crows are black. Seeing more crows confirms the hypothesis, so you develop a theory that black feathers are a property of all crows. Many years go by and all crows observed are black, just as your theory predicts. That lends great credence to your theory, but it is not proved until you have seen EVERY crow in existence and found them all to be black. If you missed even one, the theory is not proved. If you finally observe that last crow and it turns out to be black, your theory is proved, but if it turns out to be white your theory has been falsified.
A scientific theory can be provable. Getting back to the crows, it might be easy to observe every crow in your yard and find them all black and the theory is then proved if you claimed that all crows found in your yard will be black, but that's pretty restrictive.
In general, science deals with phenomena that are assumed to occur in a very large domain (the world, the universe) that is not completely known and in practical terms, you will never observe all instances of a phenomena and therefore can never prove your theory is true.
Notwithstanding all that, the word "proved" is sometimes misused (or perhaps I should say used in the courtroom sense as in "beyond reasonable doubt") in reference to science, but that only serves to confuse the issue because people take it to mean proved in the logical/mathematical sense of "irrefutably true", or complete certainty.
To eliminate such confusion & misunderstandings, I'd just as soon people didn't use "science" and "proof" in the same sentence. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 4:16:01 PM | refering to the term 'scientific theory' as being conjecture is like referring to the term 'hot dog' as a warm canine. When we're talking about science, its a different context and has a different meaning. Its like a ship captain telling you to go to the bow of the ship and you say "Bow? You want me to bend at the waist?"
If your knowledge on a subject is so weak that you can't identify such a simple homonym, you should educate yourself or stop talking before you embarass yourself. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:21:14 PM |
you will never observe all instances of a phenomena and therefore can never prove your theory is true.
I don't think that's true. The Earth is definitely round because if you fly west you'll eventually reach the spot you started from. There is no way to disprove that theory, so it is fact. Crows are black is also a factual statement. There is no experiment you can do to disprove the fact that all crows are black. You can mate two crows in your lab and create a black baby crow every time. If it's not black, there's a genetic abnormality to explain why it isn't black. Philosophically I totally agree that everything is theoretical. But scientifically lots of things are provable facts including evolution. It's just more interesting to discuss somethings as theoretical than others.
There is no theory of evolution. It has been proven through endless observation and through reproduction of evolutionary occurances. What is theoretical is how it occurs, not if. The natural selection part of Darwin's theory is the part that is considered theoretical mostly because it isn't possible to recreate thousands of years of natural selection in a lab. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:40:03 PM | I grew up in Illinois, like in most places, evolution is taught in biology. Don't remember if it was introduced then. Not sure whether my middle schooler has had it in that curriculum but my daughter did in biology and my children are in Texas, one of the places where many people are not happy that sex education is taught in health class or that evolution is presented in biology; and yet it is.
My pastor recently wrote an editorial in a major metropolitan newspaper explaining why evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive and that believing in God does not require that people ignore or reject science.
The funny thing is that neither has to be wrong, they are two different kinds of truth, there is no reason why people should assume they contradict each other. Evolution is the explanation of the vast eons past based on the scraps left for us by mother nature, Creationism is the explanation of spiritual truths left by scraps of paper left for us by churches. Faith and science each produce different kinds of truth with different kinds of uses, plenty of scientists are religious and being religious certainly does not preclude a scientific world view. Unless your a fanatic of either belief paradigm.
Nicely put. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:49:00 PM |
Why am I not surprised that you're from Texas? Evolution should no longer be referred to as a theory.
I think most people refer to it as evolutionary theory, or the theory of evolution. Evolutionary fact just doesn't have much of a ring to it. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:50:10 PM |
Actually the exact same thing could be said in reverse. Evolution can't stand on its own without creationism either.
No, thats completely wrong. If creationism disappeared like a religious fart in the wind. Evolution would still stand.
Creationism is this: "God(christian god) created everything and here are all the flaws with evolution that we think show it"
So remove evolution and you get "god created everything". There is not even a shred of evidence. The best arguement you had was disproven during the Dover case.
The sad part is that this creationism/ID nonsense is making this idiotic jump of what "god did" without proving that god exists.
Infact i could take the entire creationism/ID LIE and replace "god" with "santa" and it is just as valid as before. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 6:58:26 PM | | Evolution.... The way I see it... When I look at a house cat, small and dangerously beautiful. I turn and look the other way and see a lion, magnificent and large......both from the same family of cats. When I look at life and it's complexity and similar diversity, I see a thread and needle. A continuity. An evolution. A train of logic that spells out 'life is tough, if you want to pass on your genes then adapt'.. Those who think that we don't share our scared reflection in a mirror with apes are deluded...x | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:20:21 PM |
No, thats completely wrong. If creationism disappeared like a religious fart in the wind. Evolution would still stand.
Uh huh. But where'd the first spec of goo evolve from? Abiotic processes? Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:23:17 PM | ^^^^^
That's abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is about what happens AFTER life starts. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:29:43 PM |
I sincerely hope you're just kidding! Is it really that bad in the US?
Yes it is. When the other gentlemen here say that they had "heard" of evolution, they mean only that they heardabout it, or saw a poster. (assuming that they are my age or older and live in the US).
Evolution is not introduced as science until College here. Some scools may be different, but not in Michigan. If you ask people around here whether or not they "believe" (silly, isn't it?) in evolution, an overwhelming majority of people that have never attended college will say "no".
Here in the states, Politicians have learned that the best way to keep evolution from being viewed as the theory (theory: Hypothesis that has not yet been falsified) that it is, teach the debate. By teaching the debate, they instill doubt in the minds of people who are unable to understand the language of science, thereby increasing the number of those that will tell you that evo. is a myth. Our scool boards then vote that they will not allow evo. in the classroom without intelligent design as well. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:37:39 PM |
creationism is NOT a theory
I agree, but for different reasons. To be considered a theory means that a Hypothesis has been tested and has yielded affirmative results.
Creationism, as a science is doomed, because it can't get past the hypothesis stage. You cannot "test" whether or not something was designed by higher intelligence.
But, guys please, creationism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says "how", Creationism says "why". | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:44:29 PM | Riki19, what do you favour?
Intelligent design? Or evolution? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:01:33 PM | Which do I favor?
I can't really answer that... I guess, as a science, evolution. But as something that I would love to know more than anything else... That there is such a thing as the absolute. But, this can't be proven right now. I wish more than anything that I was going to live in eternal bliss, but I a man of no faith. Faith doesn't make sense. If I claimed to have faith that Jesus was my only lord and savior, I would not be true to myself. Questions always rear their heads. Does this make me ademon. NO! It makes me noble and gives my life purpose. I feel that I should be able to unlock the doors to my own universe, maybe not in the lifetime, but I can drag the torch of the search of truth a little bit further up the mountain of knowlege , so that the next generation doesn't have to carry it so far.
But back to the ground. Evolution... | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:03:13 PM |
Creationism says "why"
No it doesn't. It only says "how" again, but with "God did it" as the answer for all the questions.
To say "why" one would have to know the mind of God and even the theists don't pretend to know that. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:20:59 PM | | You're right. But, you miss the point. why do you suppose that the word "Creationism" was coined? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:22:06 PM |
There is no way to disprove that theory, so it is fact. Crows are black is also a factual statement. There is no experiment you can do to disprove the fact that all crows are black. You can mate two crows in your lab and create a black baby crow every time. If it's not black, there's a genetic abnormality to explain why it isn't black. Philosophically I totally agree that everything is theoretical. But scientifically lots of things are provable facts including evolution. It's just more interesting to discuss somethings as theoretical than others.
There is no theory of evolution. It has been proven through endless observation and through reproduction of evolutionary occurances. What is theoretical is how it occurs, not if. The natural selection part of Darwin's theory is the part that is considered theoretical mostly because it isn't possible to recreate thousands of years of natural selection in a lab.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Lets say a person has no knowledge of genetics and they observe a crow.
They observe that the crow is black.
They observe that when two crows mate and produce an offspring the offspring is black.
They then develop a mathematical theorem to prove their hypothesis.
They observe that the hypothesis is true for the next 3 generations of crow.
They then consider the hypothesis a theory.
Then suddenly an albino crow is born.
The theory is then called into question and leads to the discovery of genetics. The theory is then modified. If the theory gets widespread use and is true for the next 20 generations and it explains other related phenomenon, then the theory becomes a law.
So evolution is a theory. Facts are the evidence used to explain a theory, since a fact is only true for an observable phenomenon at one moment in time evolution can not be fact. It is still possible for a variable to be discovered that requires the theory to be modified. If, however, evolution gains enough widespread use then certain theories within the theory of evolution may be established as laws but not fact. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:53:56 PM |
Intelligent design is a theory,
No, it isn't. This is an "apple and orange" comparison. ToE meets the definition and testing requirements of the specific, defined, scientific term "theory". ID does not - nothing testable, nothing predictable. Based on ToE, one can examine living organisms, fossil organisms, and rock strata, and then predict where to find living organisms or fossils with particular features [eg., Tiktaalik]. ID simply cannot do that.
Having taught both creation science and evolution
Indeed. If you CAN say that with a straight face, then it's no wonder you have problems, since this statement alone shows you're unclear on what science IS. Creationism is not scientific - it's an ad hoc "explanation" which actually explains nothing.
The odds of evolution going from non living matter to current evolutionary level of man would be about the same odds as hitting the lottery three weeks running with the same numbers
Two for the price of one.
First, this is not a "hole" in evolutionary theory. The origin of life is not part of ToE. It's a seriously hard theory to put ANY holes in because it is abjectly simple: Life inherits, inherited features change, and the universe is a harsh place for disadvantageous combinations of features [this is a statistical feature of the theory]. Done. Now find an example of life which contradicts this.
Second, the "odds" are bogus. Chemicals react in specific ways, leading to complex chemistry. Life IS complex chemistry. The liklihood of humans arising [oh how "marvelous"] is post hoc 100%, though we did not arise de novo. We arose from, quite literally, countless preceding genetic experiments. Each life form with its numerous genetic variations has been an experiment in inheritance. Even with a 99% extinction rate for species [not individuals], there are now roughly 1 000 000 beetle species. With sometimes multiple generations per year, and hundreds of offspring. it's actually quite likely that new species arise with some regularity - and that's just among beetles. Provide 500 000 000 years, and diversity will increase. Each new form puts pressures on the environment and the other species, increasing the selection rate.
Biology, like evolution, is just fact
Biology is a field of study, neither fact nor theory. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is theory.
ID is a theory mainly because of the concept of Irreducible Complexity.
Simply, no. Look up the scientific standard for a "theory". ID does not, and cannot meet the standard.
gonna give me the 100, 000 pages of proof answer?
anyone? frogo?
Would there be a point? You don't listen, you don't look. I and others have provided the theory in a nutshell numerous times. It is a working explanation ["theory"] for observed facts. No further "evidence" is required, though there are millions of facts for which evolution is a logical explanation. I have provided numerous examples in many threads of 'evolution in action'. My current favorite being the arisal of a genetically, morphologically, and geographically distinct species, Caridina murrayata, from a known pre-existing species, Caridina multidentata, in under 100 years.
The examples you quote are genetic engineering not artificial selection.
No. Genetic engineering involves selecting particular gene sets. The examples provided are cases of human selective pressures exerted on observable phenotypes. The resulting genotypes arose indirectly - that's artificial selection, which is really no different from natural selection [the only difference is who or what applies the selective pressure].
ID meets the very definition of the word "theory".
Not in science it doesn't, and if it wishes to compete in a scientific arena, it is subject to scientific standards.
Umm, human beings have changed "natural selection" and thrown off evolution
Only in part. Natural selective pressures remain; and really, the fact we CHOOSE to select certain phenotypes is no different from a poison frog choosing to gobble down a particularly convenient ant while ignoring another.
Evolution occurs in different climates and ecosystems
Actually it occurs *where it occurs*, and climate or ecosystem are simply obvious pressures. So are kin, enemies, predators. There is no need to go anywhere or change environments for evolution to take place, nor for significant pressures to be exerted.
Evolution can't stand on its own without creationism either
It already does and always did.
I don't think that's true. The Earth is definitely round
That would not be a theory, but a simple statement of observational fact. A theory should explain, not state the obvious. The crow example could very well be a testable theory. In theory, all crows [I actually know this is NOT true] are black. That all KNOWN crows of a particular species are black is a factual observation. Extending that to an assumption that all crows of the species are black is a theory. It is tested by observing, over and over. It qualifies as a theory because it CAN be tested, and it can in fact fail, the moment a non-black crow is observed.
There is no theory of evolution
See above and many previous posts which explain the differences between the observed facts of evolution, and the theory that evolution explains many other observations which can never actually witness or test as they occur.
Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from?
It did not. It could not evolve until it lived in the first place. Origins of life are a different theory. The 'players' and processes involved are different, so the theories to explain them are separate.
| |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:07:50 PM | | Scientific Theories can not become scientific laws. They are two different things that have as much evidence for them as one another. The difference between the two is that a scientific law explains things that happen in the universe while a scientific theory explains how they happen. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:16:26 PM | Scientific Theories can not become scientific laws.
Not true at all. EVERY scientific law was at one stage a theory. This is scientific method 101.
| |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:23:58 PM |
why do you suppose that the word "Creationism" was coined?
To imply that things were created, that they didn't just "happen", because a creation implies a creator, which would ultimately imply God, since by that logic(?) the universe didn't just happen.
Why did the universe come into being? - because God wanted a universe to call His very own and to have some pets to play with.
What's that?...The omnipotent, omniscient creator of all things is above that sort of thing? Then why bother with creating a universe? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:51:24 PM |
EVERY scientific law was at one stage a theory. This is scientific method 101.
That's a dangerous statement to make because it leaves people with the erroneous idea that "proved" theories become scientific laws and that isn't really correct.
Most people think the progression is that an inductive hypothesis that has been supported by evidence gathered becomes the basis of a theory that explains the observations, that over time becomes "proved" and so becomes a law. It isn't quite like that. The theory never gets really proved (except maybe in the courtroom sense - beyond a reasonable doubt) and remains a theory.
There are however facts that never seem to vary no matter how often they are observed. These may become laws.
From Wikipedia: The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:02:15 PM | | Evolution... I have a tendancy to slip of topic.. Evolution.. I can slip off track.. I can make one small error and diverge.. Evolution.. That one small error leads to something that might survive and pass on that out of place attribute. Evolution.. I have a tattoo.. Evolution.. It reads in bold capitals 'UNIVERSE'.. Evolution.. Those letters run down the length of my right arm... | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 50
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
