proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Insofar as the observable mechanisms as to how it works, yes it is. Point?

this is one reason why many see in evolution= atheism.

 

[Hieronymus]

this is one reason why many see in evolution= atheism.

Hmm... Brainwashing rather..

 

[pitabread]

this is one reason why many see in evolution= atheism.

Which suggests that there are some theists that flat-out don't understand what atheism is. Or evolution for that matter.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hmm... Brainwashing rather..

You mean like being told virgins give birth, men walk on water and rise from being dead?

 

[Allandavid]

the chromosomal fusion is evidence for a common descent?

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you must have an answer to this question:
Why would a theist (a supernaturalist) subscribe to naturalistic (atheistic) ideas?

So you are saying that theists don't accept the fact of gravity? I seriously doubt that very many theists would agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm... Brainwashing rather..

No, it is clear who is suffering from brainwashing here. There is only evidence for evolution, you earlier mentioned that you don't believe anything without strong evidence. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, or at least no creationist has ever been able to find any here. Since there is only evidence for evolution your belief in creationism appears to be a case of brainwashing in your part.

 

[Astrophile]

Why do you think no one here has addressed the OP? Is evolution fact or theory?

It is both. The facts of genetics, anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology provide evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution explains these facts.

Every branch of science, for example gravitation, dynamics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, atomic physics and quantum physics, consists of both facts and theory; evolution is no different.

 

[rjs330]

Do you have cousins? If so, are they not from the same ancestors (i.e. your grandparents)? That's common ancestry in a nutshell.

Extrapolate the same process over millions of years and you now have the history of life on Earth.

Nice try. I'm human. Lizards aren't and neither are spiders. We didn't all come from the same thing.

 

[rjs330]

A prediction can't be an assumption. Whatever process goes into making a prediction, in the end is a prediction: we're going to see the following.

Because they follow from the model. We know that mutational processes are similar across, say, mammals. By definition, common descent means that humans and chimpanzees used to have identical DNA; the theory of evolution posits that all genetic change is ultimately the result of mutation. So the genetic differences between humans and chimps should look like mutations if the model is correct.

Put more simply, I actually made the prediction based on common descent. And the prediction was correct. You can't predict anything about DNA based on your belief. Why can I predict things and you can't? That's a pretty odd state of affairs if you're right and all I'm doing is making assumptions and suppositions. How would assumptions lead to correct predictions, anyway? Are you sure you've thought through this argument?

Yes by definition. The definition is an assumption. We believe we came from the ancestor. We define we came from the ancestor. We predict we came from the ancestors. And guess what we happen to find supposedly? Exactly what we expect. We assume and we find what we assumed we would find. And yet we still can't go back and find out if it's true. We can't experiment to see if it's true. We cannot offer any experiment to show we came from a common ancestor because we've never seen or found one. We have no idea what the common ancestor looked like or what it's genetic make up was UNLESS we assume so because we believe we had one.

 

[rjs330]

A prediction can't be an assumption. Whatever process goes into making a prediction, in the end is a prediction: we're going to see the following.

Because they follow from the model. We know that mutational processes are similar across, say, mammals. By definition, common descent means that humans and chimpanzees used to have identical DNA; the theory of evolution posits that all genetic change is ultimately the result of mutation. So the genetic differences between humans and chimps should look like mutations if the model is correct.

Put more simply, I actually made the prediction based on common descent. And the prediction was correct. You can't predict anything about DNA based on your belief. Why can I predict things and you can't? That's a pretty odd state of affairs if you're right and all I'm doing is making assumptions and suppositions. How would assumptions lead to correct predictions, anyway? Are you sure you've thought through this argument?

Depends on your prediction. You might predict my kids will have similarities to me. But that no real prediction. That's common sense of observation. Now predict what my ancestors will look like ten billion years from now and find out if the predictions are true and we might have something. It's just utter nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice try. I'm human. Lizards aren't and neither are spiders. We didn't all come from the same thing.

There is massive evidence that you did. You do not seem to have any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on your prediction. You might predict my kids will have similarities to me. But that no real prediction. That's common sense of observation. Now predict what my ancestors will look like ten billion years from now and find out if the predictions are true and we might have something. It's just utter nonsense.

Nice strawman. You don't seem to understand the predictions that exist out there. Theories are tested by predictions. They are predictions that properly cannot be answered at the time of formation.

For example it was known for quite some time that humans and other great apes have a different number of chromosome pairs. If the theory of evolution is correct then there should be evidence that there was a join in chromosome pairs to account for this. After we were able to sequence DNA the join was found.

There are countless examples of confirmed predictions in the theory of evolution. Creationists are afraid to even form a testable hypothesis of creationism. That is why there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

So we have theory that has been confirmed again and again versus a belief that has been shown to be wrong in many different ways. Which one would you go with?

 

[Allandavid]

Cheers for reply.

Then this is a question of faith. Lets look at the validity of faith.

Have you not experienced faith being rewarded in your life in some form?

For instance. Trust and hope in someone - love?

What form of evidence would make you believe there is a God?

As others have pointed out, you are conflating 'faith' and 'hope' and 'trust'. There is a differential requirement on evidence for each.

 

[Allandavid]

Speak for yourself.
I don't believe anything without strong evidence.
How about you?

Indeed. Now all you have to do is to provide the "strong evidence" for creationism....easy, right?

 

[Allandavid]

I already gave a very simple explanation for that with the "burned hand", and someone actually had the nerve to say it was wrong as a desperate attempt to do away with the fact things can be proven easily and beyond any doubt.

No. You provide a series of observations. There is no scientific theory evident from those observations. WHY and HOW does that mechanism occur? How would you explain it if someone put their hand on a stove and didn't get burned?

Scientific theories represent the highest level of confidence we can have in an explanatory mechanism, but they do not attempt an absolute 'proof'. They provide the best available explanation for phenomena, but always leave the door open for that explanation to be modified in the light of new evidence.

 

[Allandavid]

Then your science ain't Jack, or some of you are doing something wrong because science, our deduction of the natural...proves plenty.

OK children, let's all go over to this red hot stove for our first lesson in Science and Proof 101.... a lesson you will never forget.

Nothing more than theory?....oh brother.

That's right. Scientific theory represents the pinnacle of our understanding of any group of phenomena. It explains the HOW and WHY of those phenomena (facts).

And I'll go one better than your 'burned hand'.

Think about gravity. It's pretty well established that if I drop an object (on earth), it will fall to the ground. Happens every day, every time, right?

You'd think that the theory behind such a common, mundane phenomenon would be simple and cut and dried, right?

But it isn't. Gravitational theory is incomplete. There is still much about that simple action of things falling that we still don't understand. As more evidence is gathered/discovered, the theory will become stronger......perhaps as strong as evolutionary theory one day...

 

[Allandavid]

this is one reason why many see in evolution= atheism.

Many, or a confused few...?

Those are two independent terms. One is the observation of the diversity of living things. The other is an absence of a belief in gods. No link...

 

[Allandavid]

Depends on your prediction. You might predict my kids will have similarities to me. But that no real prediction. That's common sense of observation. Now predict what my ancestors will look like ten billion years from now and find out if the predictions are true and we might have something. It's just utter nonsense.

No, you miss the point. It's not the similarities that are key....it's the mutated differences that your children will carry that drives evolution...!

And that's what sfs' model allows us to predict...the rate at which various locations within the genome will mutate from generation to generation.

 

[xianghua]

It is both. The facts of genetics, anatomy, physiology, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology provide evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution explains these facts.

Every branch of science, for example gravitation, dynamics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, atomic physics and quantum physics, consists of both facts and theory; evolution is no different.

the claim that human and banana shared a common descent is a belief. not a fact. so yes- basically evolution is a belief.