The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[Abraxos]

"This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with."

I just asked a question: what's the problem?

Try re-reading it a few more times until it sinks in.

The best definition of the Theory of Evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".

Sounds a bit like microevolution, but just vague enough to extrapolate it to mean something else.

 

[Speedwell]

Try re-reading it a few more times until it sinks in.

No, I still don't get it. The evolutionary lines appear to have emerged from a single point. No actual direct evidence but as I said, it's a reasonable conclusion--or hypothesis f you prefer. There is no reason not to accept it as such and wait and see what more evidence emerges. It's not as if there was a competing scientific explanation.

 

[Abraxos]

No, I still don't get it. The evolutionary lines appear to have emerged from a single point. No actual direct evidence but as I said, it's a reasonable conclusion--or hypothesis f you prefer. There is no reason not to accept it as such and wait and see what more evidence emerges. It's not as if there was a competing scientific explanation.

The conclusion is logical, doesn't it mean it's evidential. You're confusing the conclusion as being logical, but that does not amount it being correct or true.

You're confusing yourself with a hypothesis and a conclusion. Two different things.

 

[Speedwell]

The conclusion is logical, doesn't it mean it's evidential. You're confusing the conclusion as being logical, but that does not amount it being correct or true.

Of course it doesn't. Nobody knows if it's true, but it seems reasonable, and there has been no other reasonable suggestion. I still don't see why that is a problem.

 

[Armoured]

All theories of natural selection inevitably involve a chance occurrence. The problem here, once again, is that "nature" lacks a will (thinker). The process of selection is a willful act.

No it's not.

 

[Abraxos]

Of course it doesn't. Nobody knows if it's true, but it seems reasonable, and there has been no other reasonable suggestion. I still don't see why that is a problem.

If something cannot be demonstrated or tested repeatedly as I pointed out in the OP, but you see no problem with it, then you have left science and entered into a belief system.

 

[pitabread]

If something cannot be demonstrated or tested repeatedly as I pointed out in the OP

Common ancestry can be both demonstrated and tested. Your OP is wrong in that regard.

 

[Speedwell]

If something cannot be demonstrated or tested repeatedly as I pointed out in the OP, but you see no problem with it, then you have left science and entered into a belief system.

There are many reasonable conclusions scientists come to that they are unable at the present to test. They remain hypotheses until such time (if ever) as it is possible to test them. If you assume common descent to be one of these, why should it be a problem, any more than any of the others?

 

[RC1970]

No it's not.

You present a very persuasive argument.

 

[Armoured]

You present a very persuasive argument.

I can present as much argument as you like, but will any amount persuade you? There's no will involved in natural selection, there's just what survives long enough to reproduce, and what doesn't.

 

[mark kennedy]

When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

You have come to the same conclusion everyone has to, evolution isn't one thing but two. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Then there is what is called the theory of evolution, aka Darwinism, that is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

 

[Armoured]

You have come to the same conclusion everyone has to, evolution isn't one thing but two. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Then there is what is called the theory of evolution, aka Darwinism, that is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before, so why keep saying it?

 

[Speedwell]

You have come to the same conclusion everyone has to, evolution isn't one thing but two. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Then there is what is called the theory of evolution, aka Darwinism, that is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Evolution and abiogenesis are theories of biology, whether you lump them together or not. All the way back to and including the big bang is cosmology. If you want your "Darwinism" to be that inclusive, you might as well just call it "science."

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before, so why keep saying it?

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

I was talking about the theory of evolution as opposed to the natural phenomenon of evolution. Notice it was in two parts, one is actual science the other was a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. But you knew that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have come to the same conclusion everyone has to, evolution isn't one thing but two. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Then there is what is called the theory of evolution, aka Darwinism, that is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

You keep making that claim, and people keep telling you that you are wrong. Why do you keep making that same claim over and over again?

 

[Abraxos]

There are many reasonable conclusions scientists come to that they are unable at the present to test. They remain hypotheses until such time (if ever) as it is possible to test them. If you assume common descent to be one of these, why should it be a problem, any more than any of the others?

I don't know of many scientists that believe in a conclusion to be true without any scientific evidence to back it up. The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact.

People believe in it, but it's not science; it's more like a philosophy (and that's being generous).

 

[Strathos]

All theories of natural selection inevitably involve a chance occurrence. The problem here, once again, is that "nature" lacks a will (thinker). The process of selection is a willful act.

Not necessarily. Humans can program computers to simulate natural selection with genetic algorithms, so why couldn't God have programmed the universe to do something similar?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know of many scientists that believe in a conclusion to be true without any scientific evidence to back it up. The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact.

People believe in it, but it's not science; it's more like a philosophy (and that's being generous).

But it is science though, and it is a fact that evolution happens.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know of many scientists that believe in a conclusion to be true without any scientific evidence to back it up.

Nip over to the Discovery institute site, there are plenty there.

The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact.

The clue is in the name, it's regarded as a theory..... it explains the facts.... of evolution.......(which is something the deniers can't deny, even if they have to imagine it's limited to 'micro-evolution' so it remains consisent with their theological views.)

People believe in it, but it's not science; it's more like a philosophy (and that's being generous).

I don't like it! It's not science!

Well scientists would disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

It can't be observed because of the vast time periods involved.
It can't be repeated because of the incredibly vast amount of variables involved, as well as the random nature of mutation.


But it can most definatly be tested. The model of evolutionary biology makes LOADS of predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in reality. We most definatly can test that!

Consider the claim that your dad is your biological dad.
We can't observe that, because your conception happened in the past.
We can't repeat that, because "you" get to be born only once.

But we can most definatly test it! Because the very claim makes predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in your DNA.

This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who have a problem with evolutionary biology are first and foremost very religious - to fundamentalist extremes. And their main motivation for denying mainstream biology is not because of the evidence or whatever, but simply because it contradicts their a priori religious beliefs.

Another thing that seems to be extremely common within this group of people, is that they usually are rather ignorant on what evolution really says and how it can be tested and supported.

And indeed, you showed that you belong to that group, with your statement above saying that it can't be tested. It most definatly can be and idd it is all the time.

Every new fossil found, every new genome sequenced,... puts the model to the test.