Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 762
Evolution. Page 31 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

By the way, the correct term is "theory of evolution"..............

Simply "evolution" is correct, as is theory of evolution. Even more precise, as far as the theory aspect, is "theory of natural selection." Evolution is the observation and natural selection is the mechanism. The former is called a scientific fact while the latter is a scientific theory-- much like gravity and the theory of gravity.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 763
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:12:08 AM

The proper term used to be "theory of evolution", I guess that has evolved into just "evolution".


Yes, much the same way we have gravity, Relativity, Chaos, Quantum Mechanics, atoms, germs...


Amazing how that works....................... I guess evolution really does take place.


In some quicker than others.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 764
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 11:30:08 AM

The proper term used to be "theory of evolution", I guess that has evolved into just "evolution".

As I said, they are both correct. Nothing has changed. They are not mutually exclusive terms-- exclusive terminology is merely the rut you want to be stuck in.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 765
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 12:03:18 PM

I still believe that it's possible to accept evolution and still believe in some sort of spirituality though.


That should be no problem since evolution doesn't state the whole thing wasn't started by some creator or creators.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 766
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 1:11:12 PM
A lot of stuff that's in the Bible has been shown to be wrong - Galileo was condemned as a heretic because he argued that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe as the Bible says for example. When science has shed light on things that are in contradiction to the Biblical accounts, then those accounts have (eventually) been read as metaphor.

I don't care how fundamentalist you are, I'm betting you don't think that there are only 144,000 souls getting into heaven.

The science is clear and loud. Every new advance in science confirms it - now that we can read DNA we know that something like a third of our DNA is composed of old retroviruses that our genetic ancestors survived. Evolutionary theory would say that we would share more of those retroviruses with species that have followed farther along the same evolutionary branch as us. Guess what the evidence shows?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 767
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 3:35:33 PM

Whatever the "evidence" shows, what relevance is it when you compare "evidence" to a "theory"? Of course that also depends on what consider evidence to be.


Paul, do you understand what "theory" means in the scientific context? Evidence either supports or falsifies a theory. For instance, if an exception to the theory of General Relativity were found, such as something spontaneously leaping off a planet's surface without any other external force (i.e. a rocket) or, in Quatum Mechanical theory, if single photons fired through a double-slit showed no wave interference pattern and only a two slits, these two theories would be falsified and it would be back to the drawing board.

The fact that objects are attracted to one another and photons fired one at a time through a double slit still show a wave interference pattern are evidence FOR their individual theories.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 768
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:13:41 PM
That's why I resent the recent utterance by Hawkins regarding creation by god of our universe. It's none of Hawkins' business what others believe, in his capacity as a scientist.


Well, according to the various news media, Hawkings

asserts that the laws of physics, not God, are all that is needed to explain the beginning of the universe from nothing to something.


But Hawkings didn't say who created the law of physics, so he did not categoricaly deny God's role in creation.


He is exerting undue influence on an issue, by way of his authority. His authority is in another field, though, not in matters of faith.


And the various churches don't exert undue authority in non faith fields? Like wanting creationism or Intelligent Design taught in science classrooms?

So it's OK for various people of faith to use their faith to promote their view, but it isn't OK for atheists to promote theirs?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 769
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:15:39 PM

As a human being, he has the right to say that. But his authority which he gained by becoming and iconoclast, he is too big for the purposes of meddling in issues other than what he has been iconized for.

Let me explain. He is a giant. A symbol. An icon. An AUTHORITY.


As is the Pope when he speaks out & uses his authority to promote his views to anyone that isn't Catholic.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 770
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:33:58 PM
He is doing a fallacy within the argument of parts of society. He is uttering a statement and it is viewed with admiration by everyone, because of his AUTHORITY. But his AUTHORITY is shifted for what he's got it for, to an AUTHORITY in a field in which he is not. People do not notice this slight slay of the hand fallacy. They say, authority, authority, same difference, I believe he is right.


"Appeal to Authority Fallacy"?

Are you kidding?

...you do realize that logical fallacies aren't cute little buzzwords that have contextual plasticity, ...right?


He is actually abusing his AUTHORITY. A question of faith is a moral, or personal decision or commitment without decision; it is not a scientifically influencable decision. It is a matter in which each individual has the same amount of respect and impact of opinion for himself or herself. I can't say that my atheism is more important to Peter than his Christianity. My atheism is most imprtant for me, and Peter's Christianity is most important for Peter.


Yeah! and people should keep their mouths shut if they know what they're talking about because yellow has absolutely no bones!

Hey, ...non sequiturs are fun!


Hawkins oversteps this personal boundary of authority and absolute ownership of the self over the self's beliefs; Hawkins, with his sheer weight as an icon of society, tramples on other people's autonomy, by stating something like that.


Right, those incapable of thinking for themselves should never be exposed to someone who can, ...well, ...think.


I don't know if this makes sense to you guys. It's a moral issue, not a scientific one, not one that can be decided by calculations and measurements.


Nawwww... think of it as ignorance, ...by degree.

Two choices, ...make the world view match the observed, ....or ignore the observed if it shits on your world view.

How's the latter workin' out for ya?

YMMV

EDIT:

Whoa... yet another evolution thread led down the cosmology path due to d'uh.






....par.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 771
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:45:40 PM
Naw, he's no bully, ...I'd put a sawbuck on you Tex, ...even if you had both hands tied behind yer back and wearing styrofoam pants and shoes.

Either way, ...my objection wasn't with the target, ...it was with the weapon.

Bad reasoning gives me a rash.

Evolution is a fact, ...as much as we can have facts, be facts, ...it's a fact.

The theory explaining it is not only falsifiable, ...it's clarify-able (is - and will be).

....it has nothing to do with Hawkings, his purview, his expertise or his persona. The big mistake is taking the bait from the rising tide of ignorance peddled by those who wrongly conflate (polyflate?) any scientific "fact", observation or theory (or those who espouse them); from the many different and distantly related branches of it.

...Like it means something. (sigh)

....pisses me off.

 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 772
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2010 10:59:09 PM
Yeah, the Phil Plait approach as opposed to the PZ Myers way...

Tell you what bro', I'll join you in civility AFTER Nov. 8, ...maybe.

Ahhh... probably not, I don't fancy myself an ignorance accommodationalist. I don't NEED to ridicule "the person", ...nor do I often indulge in that ploy, ...it's (often) their own words that ridicule them, ...therein lies the rub.


ridiculing those who aren't on board


No... no no no.

Not them, ...just the ridiculous things they say.

That's the difference between an "appeal to ridicule" fallacy and the valid argument of "reductio ad absurdum".
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 773
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2010 4:51:51 PM
For those interested you can listen to M. Kaku on the radio. Go to his website, mkaku.org and you can read his blog and listen to his radio shows. He'll be publishing another book early next year. And no I'm not a publist for him.

Oh the creationist have it kinda right in saying that we're not monkey's....We're great Apes because we have no tail. The tail is all the difference between a monkey and an ape.

:And I like Space Ghost Coast to Coast lol.:

 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 774
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2010 9:12:07 PM
No, evolution is a fact. It is a direct observation of changes being inherited.

The theory of evolution is another matter - it is the explanation that the fact of evolution proceeds under the influence of the observed fact of natural selection.

The theory of evolution is not "evolution happens". That's the fact. The theory is "evolution is driven or directed by means of natural selection".
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 775
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/31/2010 3:00:00 AM
Actually, facts DO need explanations, and evolution IS a fact. Gravity is a fact - masses fall to earth. The theory of gravity offers an explanation of why. Evolution happens - there are countless examples of traits being inherited from parental organisms, and novel traits appearing and being passed onto the next generation. Darwin and Lamarck did not propose that evolution happens. They argued that one well-known fact was influenced by another, and that this process explained not just the directly studied forms, but ALL diversity of life. The fact of evolution was already well-established in the forms of crop development and animal husbandry. Mendel's peas were a clear example of evolution, as were the multitude of dog, cat, horse, sheep, goat, chicken, pig, and cattle breeds, the many forms of squash, tomato, orange, apple, carrot, eggplant, wheat, rice, corn, cabbage. All of these are nothing more than random variations inherited by offspring, which is evolution. The fact that humans choose to cultivate particular variants is selection, as is the action of any other predator to selectively kill the easiest prey. The theory of evolution states little more than 'the act of selection determines which products of evolution survive and propogate'. There are functionally innumerate corollaries to this theory, such as "humans evolved from other apes", and "birds evolved from other theropod dinosaurs". Those are very precise and specific applications of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and are theories in their own rights.

Arguments that evolution does not take place is largely a recent phenomenon advocated by willful retards. Prior to Darwin, evolution was a fact of life. Darwin trained for the Anglican clergy. His mentor, Reverend John Stevens Henslow, was a botanist (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/church.html). Mendel was an Augustinian monk. Neither Abrahamic faith, nor its adherents had any disagreement with the facts of evolution or of selection. That was initially instigated by popular distaste for Darwin's logical deduction that HUMANS were also subject to evolution, inasmuch as the evidence suggested that we were not created de novo ex nihilo, but evolved from such distasteful things as apes! Once the first idiots appeared, they multiplied in inverse proportion to their knowledge of evolution, natural selection, and the theory of evolution - mainly in the USA, though increasingly in Australia and the UK. Unfortunately, it seems that increased public freedom has meant increased freedom to be ineducable. People DO argue about facts, largely because they are clueless as to what the facts are and what theories are.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 776
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/31/2010 3:40:18 AM
What you are missing here is that evolution IS directly observable. We can directly observe the characteristics of grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren - what we observe as changing inherited traits is what we define as the factual process of evolution. A parent has recognizable traits which distinguish it from others of its species. Some of those traits are inherited by its offspring, which has further unique traits passed on to its own offspring. Evolution is a factual, observable process. It is a process we have manipulated for millenia in order to produce our livestock, pets, and crops. It is not only nearly universally accepted, it has been almost universally manipulated, whether to produce silk in China, potatos in the Andes, corn in Mexico, wheat in western Asia, or****r spaniels in Europe. Whether or not the word itself is recognized, the process we give the name to clearly is.


3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

The part in italics is the fact, and you should easily perceive that it is directly observable. The remaining portions apply only to the theory.

And in case you're not comfortable with my dissection of that particular definition in order to separate the fact from the theory...

1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them See also natural selection

Again, the italics are the fact, and this part is the same definition as the previous. The remainder is just an example of the fact as it is applied through the theory.

The theory explains why the fact is what it is.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 777
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 10:28:19 AM
Do you not get that when you have two creatures that are very similar, what you are missing is the PROOF that one came from the other........

In other words, you didn't understand the difference between evolution and the ``Theory of Evolution'' despite the very simple, eloquent explanation that was posted earlier on this page by FrogO_Oeyes. Let me emlighten you. Evolution is genetic change. That is a fact. If it weren't it would be impossible for viruses to mutate or bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics or any number of other things that require genetic information to change AT ALL from parent to offspring. Like gravity, that's a fact and it's expoited in laboratories around the world everyday.

The Theory of Evolution posits that natural selection (or somewhat loosely, survival of the fittest), is responsible for weeding out genetic changes that do not improve survival and lead to new species which better utilize their environment over very long periods of time (compared with a few centuries.) That seems to me to rather obvious and requires mothing more than simple logic to grasp and consider quite reasonable. Nevertheless, that is the crux of your objection. Apparently, you are incapable of believing the god you think is omnipotent is capable of doing things without your advice and consent. Your objection to the theory of evolution has nothing to do with any faith in anything but your own belief that you know god wouldn't do anything in a way you wouldn't agree with.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 778
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 11:08:16 AM

Sort of like going to an automobile manufacturing plant, and reverse engineering some of the tools and robots there, and then declaring that we know how the process works......... yet whoever did that still has no idea how those tools were designed in the first place, who designed them, and why............


Kinda like how "intelligent design" works it's wy back to how the process works ( the designer is God) yet the ID crowd still has no idea how the designer created everything in the first place, who designed the designer, and who designed the designer's designer etc etc

Nothing wrong with believing in a designer if you want to, but with no evidence to show the designer exists it can only be a faith, not a science.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 779
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 11:12:48 AM

Since everybody else is being sarcastic, so will I........... I had no idea that you could read my mind, and know just what I think.

I didn't read your mind. I read what you wrote.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 780
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 11:52:37 AM

Since everybody else is being sarcastic, so will I........... I had no idea that you could read my mind, and know just what I think.

I haven't really seen the widespread sarcasm that you refer to here. Anyway, when you write down your thoughts on this subject regularly, in a way, people here can read your mind and know what you think, unless every post of yours is complete pretense and fabrication.

The difference between us is that I acknowledge that I don't know how it all got started and how it ended up as it is now, and you seem to be very certain that you do.

If that were truly the case, then you would be reflecting an attitude of humility, asking many questions, and reflecting upon the answers given-- perhaps even learning from them! You are certainly not doing that. I tend to think that what you are really trying to say is that you KNOW that NO ONE really knows these things, whether they think they do or not. Instead of reflecting an attitude of humility, you take the stance of knowing better than others-- "I know what we don't know yet you do not!" Your problem is that simply stating "no one knows" does not make it true.

Sort of like going to an automobile manufacturing plant, and reverse engineering some of the tools and robots there, and then declaring that we know how the process works......... yet whoever did that still has no idea how those tools were designed in the first place, who designed them, and why............

Again, you speak as if there is definitely a designer involved. It seems that you at least "know" that much...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 781
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 12:00:32 PM

There are different levels of proof, and to me evolution has yet to rise to the level of proof I would require.


Which is perfectly fine, we are all free to believe as we choose. The problem arises when some take something based on faith ( in this case, ID) and attempy to have it taught as something based on science in the science class of a public school.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 782
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 1:10:19 PM
I keep telling you that UNTIL we know how it all got started, we are just guessing at best. We have observed and learned a lot of things via the scientific process, but if you were to look at all of the huge mass of scientific knowledge gained until now, and how much we don't know, how much we don't know dwarfs what we do know. Perspective I guess.


And this is an argument based on your own personal incredulity.



There are different levels of proof, and to me evolution has yet to rise to the level of proof I would require.

So's this.

As has been stated repeatedly, all scientific knowledge is conditional. However, several facts are known about evolution that makes it the best, most factually-based conclusion that can explain the development of species. Sure, it can be superceded by a superior theory. But that theory has to do a better job at explaining many of the things that evolution currently does. By default, we must eliminate "supernatural" explanations since they are untestable and unobservable. In that arena, "God did it" is as credible as "Magic Elves did it."

To say "we don't know enough" could be applied to any other science like gravity, medicine, aviation engineering, etc. but I'm guessing you don't expect the ticket counter salesperson to convince you of the legitimacy of aviation science before you buy a ticket, do you?

We know enough to make conclusions. We also know enough to structure experiments to further refine conclusions or revise conclusions. That's how science works. Of course, evolution challenges our view that we are something "more" than the rest of the animal kingdom. Gawd forbid, eh?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 783
Evolution.
Posted: 11/2/2010 10:37:30 PM
Many children escape their background (familial) and education (common) and well...welcome to the real world. There is hope in those who are not indoctrinated easily into any belief system. Evolution is a given. The rest is not.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 784
Evolution.
Posted: 11/3/2010 10:19:20 AM
You know Paul, it's pretty unlikely that President Carter has mispronounced "nuclear." Seeing as he is a nuclear physicist.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 785
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/3/2010 3:55:36 PM
Did this thread devolve into "Societial Evolution"? lol. But back at the the topic at hand, does evolution exist, of course and we can see this in pratical matters such as agriculture, and how we can now gene splice and make hybrid plants. We can also see this at the human cellular level with stem cell research. (Side stepping the abortion issue and will call it adult stem cells). I was previleged to assist one of my under-graduate classmates with here cloning Capstone. We worked on a fish, and I was a useful pair of hands thats about it. :) Now as for being among the best and the brightest, I had a middle-class upbring, but I was selected in 1996 as one of Central Marylands Brighest and Best students by my school, my state, and my peers and reconized by WMAR TV in MD. So money has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is, it is about dirve and curiosity. Look at Dr. Ben Carson, one of the world's leading nuero-surgeons he grew up in the projects of Baltimore, and now he's the head guy at John's Hopkins.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 786
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 10:19:12 AM

Did this thread devolve into "Societial Evolution"? lol.


Red herrings...


No. A fact does not need the justification of an explanation.


The universe is held together with leprechaun boot-buckle dust.


Evolution is not a fact.


It is a scientific fact, with a theory that explains it that has held up over a hundred years and been further clarified and substantiated as knowledge and technology have progressed



Were it a fact, people would not argue that it does not exist, much like people don't argue that the sky is blue, that the air we breathe.


This makes absolutely no sense, you may as well say, "Scrabble is not a game, it is a religious doctrine, because ice cream has no bones."


There is no evidence that proves there is no god, and there is no evidence to prove there is no god.


The universe is held together with leprechaun boot-buckle dust.

Prove this wrong (or, do yourself a favour and understand what "burden of proof" is and how it works).


Atheism only has one doctrine, one credo, and that one states that there is no such thing as god or gods.


No, it has no doctrine or credo, it is merely the negative of two possible positions on the belief in a supernatural moral agent/deity. No more no less.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, or science.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >