Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 26
Evolution.Page 2 of 96    (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)
Intelligent design is a theory, although it does not go against evolution necessarily. Also, it does not necessarily suggest the existence of a deity of any sort. Based on the premises of ID, it is possible that aliens from a distant galaxy seeded the earth with DNA and let life evolve from that.

But we all know that ID is just religion in disguise and is used solely to push a strictly religious agenda under the guise of science.
 killene
Joined: 3/28/2009
Msg: 27
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 11:19:30 AM

Why am I not surprised that you're from Texas?


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.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 28
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 12:02:02 PM
I believe that ID is a theory, but not evolution. Evolution is a fact. And I don't believe that ID should be taught in schools as a theory. There is a theory that the mob killed JFK, but I don' t think that theory should be told to children to explain how the president was assassinated. Some theories are outlandish and baseless and don't belong in the education system. ID is one of them.
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 12:23:03 PM

I believe that ID is a theory, but not evolution. Evolution is a fact.


Wrong and wrong!

Evolution is a theory based on observation and hypothesis and is still changing.

Creationism/ID is a set of statements with no backup or possibility of challenge.

In science a theory is put out there and other scientists try to prove/disprove it, recently Stephen Hawking changed his view of his own theory regarding Black Holes. A theory is never a fact, it is a set of ideas that reflect current thinking from the evidence/observations available.
Science never has a problem challenging a theory based on new evidence/observations, this is not the case with Creationism/ID which is faith-based.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 30
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 12:48:22 PM

Wrong and wrong!

Evolution is a theory based on observation and hypothesis and is still changing.

Creationism/ID is a set of statements with no backup or possibility of challenge..


I don't agree, for the simple that that nearly EVERYTHING is subject to change and therefore would constitute as "theory"-- which then becomes a pointless term. Biology is not a theory, but it is based on observation and hypothesis and is always changing. Ever heard of the theory of biology? I haven't. Biology, like evolution, is just fact. There are a slew of caveats and quailifiers to that though.

ID is a theory mainly because of the concept of Irreducible Complexity. It makes sense, in "theory", because it states that complex things must have been created by something even more complex. It uses logic and actual observation to help legitmize itself as a theory, however, it does fail as a matter of fact when put under scrutiny. But on the surface it is a sound theory. It is far better than "goddidit" which is not a theory at all.
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:20:16 PM
coveredinpaint:

In science everything is a theory until it is proved inconclusively to be so. Biology has many caveats and qualifiers because not all events can be explained.

ID is not a theory because it is not based on observation but an idea. ID was created because Creationism had too many religious connotations. The use of the word 'must' is not something that is prevalent in the scientific community, a better word is 'could'.

My background is in science, lots of physics and chemistry in school. I now write test software in the defense industry and we do not accept many things as fact. We test and retest and retest using many different scenarios until we are sure we can say "it will work very nearly all the time". I have seen test systems display problems many years after deployment because there was a set of circumstances that we had not thought of or allowed for.

A fact is only something that exists until someone disproves it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:27:23 PM
intoart, got any proof of evolution for me?
notice, no bad words.
you haven't got any, and never will, because there isn't any.

gonna give me the 100, 000 pages of proof answer?

anyone? frogo?

dukky, tell me, what I want isn't available, is it?
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 33
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:38:41 PM
thrums,


ID is not a theory because it is not based on observation but an idea.


Also not true. Scientists have observed bacterial flagellum which have incredibly small, yet efficient, mechanical parts that function at near optimal efficiency given their size and make up. A perfectly reasonable theory is that something designed these, and that they didn't just come about out of random chance.
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:51:45 PM
coveredinpaint


Also not true. Scientists have observed bacterial flagellum which have incredibly small, yet efficient, mechanical parts that function at near optimal efficiency given their size and make up. A perfectly reasonable theory is that something designed these, and that they didn't just come about out of random chance.


Not true, a theory not only tries to explain observations but puts forward hypothesis of further changes. A theory says if action A happens then reaction B will happen. If enough scientists can duplicate the experiment then the theory is plausible until someone else puts forward contradictory data. A theory is only a fact until conflicting data appears.
Evolution holds to that paradigm, ID does not!
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 35
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:56:57 PM
@ aremeself...

Seen any reports about antibiotic-resistant bacteria lately...? That's evolution in action.

Look at a poodle, or a chihuahua, or a pit bull - they are products of evolution by artificial selection... so why is evolution by natural selection so hard to accept...?
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:03:23 PM

@ aremeself...

Seen any reports about antibiotic-resistant bacteria lately...? That's evolution in action.

Look at a poodle, or a chihuahua, or a pit bull - they are products of evolution by artificial selection... so why is evolution by natural selection so hard to accept...?


The examples you quote are genetic engineering not artificial selection. Natural selection is a species adapting to its environment without external influence. We bread white mice for scientific study yet they could not live in the wild without evolving, something the animal rights groups forget when they attack a laboratory and release them!
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 37
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:16:43 PM

Not true, a theory not only tries to explain observations but puts forward hypothesis of further changes. A theory says if action A happens then reaction B will happen. If enough scientists can duplicate the experiment then the theory is plausible until someone else puts forward contradictory data. A theory is only a fact until conflicting data appears.
Evolution holds to that paradigm, ID does not!


This is just arguing about what the word "theory" means. Semantics. Nothing more. But you're still incorrect because...

From merriam webster dictionary
theory: 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation

Those are the first two definitions straight out the dictionary. You can get into all these "if/then" statements and hoopla about this, that, and the other. But for the simplicity of the argument, ID meets the very definition of the word "theory".
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:19:32 PM
scorpio
I managed to avoid studying evolution in school, and in university.
At my faith school, we were encouraged to think, especially about the faith that was taught.
It shows.

That's WHY I question evolution. Not that it isn't possible. Just that I was raised to think...
...like a religious enthusiast who accepts absurd and unsubstantitated religious claims at face value and is skeptical of things that you find unsavory, even if they are supported overwhelmingly by evidence.

This attempt to try to convince us that your skepticism is based on critical thinking instead of religious indoctrination fails for a couple reasons.

One is that you're not coming up with an alternative to evolution. Evolution elegantly explains what we observe in biology, paleontology, biogeography, etc. To question it
without having a better explanation is foolish. If you want to get rid of the ToE, simply come up with a better explanation for the things that it explains.

Two is that critical thinking doesn't mean mindlessly questioning something repeatedly forever as you do with evolution - questioning is a part of critical thinking, not the totality of it. I could question the existence of earth and question every piece of evidence in support of it but that wouldn't make me a critical thinker. Critical thinking also involves examination and evaluation; it involves having an open mind and objectively following the evidence to a logical conclusion. Anyone who stops at the 'question stage' is not a critical thinker.

coveredinpaint
ID is a theory mainly because of the concept of Irreducible Complexity. It makes sense, in "theory", because it states that complex things must have been created by something even more complex
And yet when we observe nature, the opposite is what happens. Even creationists admit that the fossil record shows that complexity is increasing as time goes on - starting from simple bacteria in lower layers leading up to complex creatures in shallow layers. IC and ID are not scientific theories, they are conjecture.
A perfectly reasonable theory is that something designed these, and that they didn't just come about out of random chance.
Nobody is saying that they evolved randomly. Except creationists for some reason.
As I mentioned in another thread recently, those who think evolution is random do not understand Biology, Biochemistry or Genetics. The position of cells is not random, it is coded by the genes and controlled by chemical concentrations in the cells. In biochemistry, things attract, repel, combine, break apart, and interact in all kinds of non-random ways. And even creationists admit that natural selection is not random - for example, do infertile creatures have just as high a chance to sire offspring as fertile ones?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 39
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:32:44 PM
@ thrums...


The examples you quote are genetic engineering not artificial selection.


Regarding the dog breeds I mentioned, they're the result of *selective breeding*. You choose the animals with traits you want, and allow them to have offspring. That is the ESSENCE of artificial selection. Genetic engineering is, from what I've come to understand, the direct manipulation of the genome in order to produce the traits you desire.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 40
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:52:55 PM

dukky, tell me, what I want isn't available, is it?

No it isn't. In nature, a theory can only be falsified (proved false), it can never be proved true.
If you want proof, stick to math & logic.
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 41
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:36:10 PM
Do you mean in science everything is a hypothesis until it meets strict standards of observational evidence and then it becomes eithe r a theory or a law? Because a scientific theory is different from an plain everyday theory.
 jcrew617
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 42
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:41:00 PM

don't know how many times it has to be said, but evolution [changing species] has not been proven.

doesn't matter how many volumes have been written.


Thats a great point, so are primates, humans and gorillas the same species? We all have the same skeletal structure and organs. The only difference is the size of our brains.
 BumFluff122
Joined: 4/4/2009
Msg: 43
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:44:18 PM
we can't interbreed with any of the greater apes due to the fact that they have 48 chromosones and we have 46. So no, we aren't the same species. Attempts at breeding both species together in a laboratory go back into the early 90's and have constantly failed.
 jcrew617
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 44
Evolution.
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:45:30 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.


I think there is more evidence and studies done on Evolution than there is on Creationism.

Isn't Creationism just trying to win by "DEFAULT" and is not really that interesting.

Its far more interesting actually studying Evolution and trying to prove, analyze, and observe evolution in progress.
 jcrew617
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 45
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.
 Andy687
Joined: 6/5/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
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.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 48
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.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
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.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
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.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.