Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

revdave · Dec 31, 2005

It might helpif we can separate various terms. For example there is micro evolution and macro evolution. The latter has not been proven nor has one shred of evidence been obtained in its defense.
The former is certainly a proven fact and ,in fact,as a plant hybridizer I have participated in its aplication.
On other threads I have began calling Macro evolution as well as other larger apects of Origins as darwinism.

invisible trousers · Dec 31, 2005

there is no evidence for macro evolution

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

gluadys · Dec 31, 2005

Lion of God said:
That would be interesting considering that many scientists consider Creationism as being a psuedo-science because it is unfalsifiable. By stating it is proven to be wrong you are also stating it is a legitimate science.

That is why I asked for a definition. Some aspects of creationism are not falsifiable because they are not science e.g. that a supernatural being created the universe is not falsifiable.

But others (which may not be held by all creationists, as opinions differ) may be falsifiable e.g.that the creation of all animals occurred only a few thousand years ago. That is testable and refutable and has been proven wrong.

So the question of whether creationism has been proven wrong cannot be answered without knowing what the supporter of creationism includes in his/her version of creationism.

Edmond · Dec 31, 2005

shernren said:
Agreed, gluadys. Thanks for correcting me and pointing that out about the LUCA.

You understand what? I hope you'll phrase yourself clearly, because that is actually (on surface level) a creationist belief. When they are presented with certain examples of evolution such as antibiotic resistance and the nylon bug, some will say that in fact, the environment has directly acted on the DNA causing it to change and exhibit beneficial properties, thus showing no net increase in information (whatever they mean by information in the first place).

What I mean to say is that because of environmental influence, certain members of a population will be able to reproduce more than other members of a population. This means that the traits they carry genetically will be passed on more often and gradually the genetic makeup of the population will be changed. The environment does not directly affect DNA, it affects it through reproduction. And this has demonstrably produced new species.

Who said anything about lying? Wasn't me.

Myths and lies are two different animals. Myths are what happens when God has to accommodate His word and story to pre-scientific cultures. He wasn't going to wait around until they developed the scientific concepts and vocabulary of GR and quantum physics and evolutionism before He told them just what the world is there for. So He went ahead and told them the whole why of it knowing there was no way He could possibly fit the how into their science at the time.

Please tell me how you can state that your own conclusion is that the creation account of Gen. is a myth went Jesus Himself in Matt 19:4 referred to it as an actual historic event that had happen exactly as in is written.

shernren said:
Lying? That's a serious charge.

shernren said:
Yes, you're right. I was careless about choosing my words. It would have been better for me to say that the resurrection transcended science. All the same, though, I think the scientific evidence points against YECism because it would have to be spectacularly anti-science in extremely mind-boggling ways. There is a whole lot of naturalistic evidence that should be there if the universe is 6000 years old. Instead, we see not only the nearly-complete lack of naturalistic evidence for a young earth, we see a complete preponderance of physical evidence - of appearance of history - that no young-earth theory adequately explains.
<snip>

LoG · Dec 31, 2005

gluadys said:
That is why I asked for a definition. Some aspects of creationism are not falsifiable because they are not science e.g. that a supernatural being created the universe is not falsifiable.

Would you agree that there are some aspects of Evolutionism that are untestable at present?

gluadys · Dec 31, 2005

Lion of God said:
Would you agree that there are some aspects of Evolutionism that are untestable at present?

No. At least not in its major premises. Some details of common descent may not be available to test, but not because they are untestable, just because the data hasn't been discovered and analysed yet, But that evolution happens has already been tested and affirmed by direct observation, and the major mechanisms of evolution have already been tested and affirmed by direct observation. And while history is not directly testable, what the history was can be tested indirectly through deduction,prediction and test of the prediction. To date the major predictions have not been falsified.

john crawford · Dec 31, 2005

invisible trousers said:
there is no evidence for macro evolution

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My

Rather than being evidence of evolution, this ludicrous fossil scenario is evidence of neo-Darwinist racial theories which to to show that "primitive" African people originated from apes and chimpanzees.

john crawford · Dec 31, 2005

gluadys said:
Some details of common descent may not be available to test, but not because they are untestable, just because the data hasn't been discovered and analysed yet, But that evolution happens has already been tested and affirmed by direct observation, and the major mechanisms of evolution have already been tested and affirmed by direct observation.

Human evolution in Africa has not been tested and affirmed by direct observation and the major theories, models and step-by-step scenarios depicting "primitive" African people evolving from ape and monkey ancestors are inherently racist.

gluadys · Dec 31, 2005

john crawford said:
Human evolution in Africa has not been tested and affirmed by direct observation and the major theories, models and step-by-step scenarios depicting "primitive" African people evolving from ape and monkey ancestors are inherently racist.

As I said, some details of common descent may need more data for confirmation.

invisible trousers · Dec 31, 2005

john crawford said:
Rather than being evidence of evolution, this ludicrous fossil scenario is evidence of neo-Darwinist racial theories which to to show that "primitive" African people originated from apes and chimpanzees.

Interesting. I'd appreciate it if you could actually back up those statements with real evidence, instead of repeating the same old creationist lies.

The Lady Kate · Jan 1, 2006

john crawford said:
Human evolution in Africa has not been tested and affirmed by direct observation and the major theories, models and step-by-step scenarios depicting "primitive" African people evolving from ape and monkey ancestors are inherently racist.

What are you talking about?

john crawford · Jan 2, 2006

gluadys said:
As I said, some details of common descent may need more data for confirmation.

Until such time as more data is forthcoming and scientifically "confirmed," all proposals, suggestions, inferences, claims, teachings, taxonomies, phylogenies, scenarios, and models which associate so-called "primitive" African people with common descent from non-human ape ancestors should be regarded and condemned by all respectable scientists as a neo-Darwinist form of racial prejudice and bigotry.

Numenor · Jan 2, 2006

The Lady kate said:
What are you talking about?

Only John and God himself really know.

john crawford · Jan 2, 2006

invisible trousers said:
Interesting. I'd appreciate it if you could actually back up those statements with real evidence, instead of repeating the same old creationist lies.

The evidence of racial prejudice and bigotry inherent in neo-Darwinist models and constructs of human evolution is in the way they date and arrange the fossil skulls themselves. A, B and C are all ape fossils. There is a gap of .6 Million years between ape fossil C and the first so-called African human 'species,' D.

Since there is no testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE of any evolution of African ape C into African human D during the .6 Million years, all suggestions, proposals, inferences, conclusions, diagrams, charts, phylogenies, taxonomies, teachings, claims, or beliefs that so-called "primitive" African people originated from non-human African ape ancestors are simply expressions of neo-Darwinist racial bigotry and prejudice. Such neo-Darwinist racial bigotry and prejudice should be condemned by all respectable scientists.

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My

The Lady Kate · Jan 2, 2006

john crawford said:
The evidence of racial prejudice and bigotry inherent in neo-Darwinist models and constructs of human evolution is in the way they date and arrange the fossil skulls themselves. A, B and C are all ape fossils. There is a gap of .6 Million years between ape fossil C and the first so-called African human 'species,' D.

Perhaps I'm missing something here... what's your point? That a species cannot evolve in 600,000 years?

Since there is no testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE of any evolution of African ape C into African human D during the .6 Million years,

Except for the skulls you were just talking about. Did they magically disappear?

all suggestions, proposals, inferences, conclusions, diagrams, charts, phylogenies, taxonomies, teachings, claims, or beliefs that so-called "primitive" African people originated from non-human African ape ancestors are simply expressions of neo-Darwinist racial bigotry and prejudice. Such neo-Darwinist racial bigotry and prejudice should be condemned by all respectable scientists.

I'm not seeing the racism here... help me out.

john crawford · Jan 2, 2006

Numenor said:
Only John and God himself really know.

Evolutionists don't seem to really know how African people evolved from non-human African ape ancestors. They just assume it, and every time neo-Darwinists assemble their beloved fossil skulls in an array of evolutionary progression from African ape species to African human 'species', they only offer evidence of their deeply-embedded racial prejudice and bigotry for all the world to see.

john crawford · Jan 2, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
Perhaps I'm missing something here... what's your point? That a species cannot evolve in 600,000 years?

Point is, Lady Kate, there is no testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE of African ape C ever evolving into African human D. It's just an unfounded and biased assumption on the part of neo-Darwinist race theorists. That's why all 'respectable' scientists should disavow neo-Darwinist racial theories and condemn the inherent racism in all theories of human evolution in or out of Africa.

Except for the skulls you were just talking about. Did they magically disappear?

No, you neglected to post them. Here, I'll make them magically appear again.

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

I'm not seeing the racism here... help me out.

How about the racial prejudice and bigotry inherent in assuming that so-called "primitive" African people (D and E) originated from hairy apes? (A, B and C) without a shred of testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE to support such pretentious and abominable racial theories about the origins of African people?

invisible trousers · Jan 3, 2006

Why aren't you quoting any people who believe in evolution? You keep writing about all this racist stuff but don't actually justify it.

john crawford said:
Point is, Lady Kate, there is no testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE of African ape C ever evolving into African human D. It's just an unfounded and biased assumption on the part of neo-Darwinist race theorists. That's why all 'respectable' scientists should disavow neo-Darwinist racial theories and condemn the inherent racism in all theories of human evolution in or out of Africa.

well there's this...

Australopithecus africanus (Fossils)

A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

and this

Homo habilis (Fossils)

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html for fun. but whatever, you can continue to ignore the evidence.

LoG · Jan 3, 2006

gluadys said:
No. At least not in its major premises. Some details of common descent may not be available to test, but not because they are untestable, just because the data hasn't been discovered and analysed yet, But that evolution happens has already been tested and affirmed by direct observation, and the major mechanisms of evolution have already been tested and affirmed by direct observation. And while history is not directly testable, what the history was can be tested indirectly through deduction,prediction and test of the prediction. To date the major predictions have not been falsified.

And neither have they been verified except by deduction and prediction. What we are talking about is what could have happened, not what necessarily did. Using your method I could say that Creationism is true because we do not have Adam's bones or DNA to test and falsify that he is our common ancestor but I can deduce and predict that he is.
No data means it is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable by scientific methods. If a major premise is not falsifiable it falls outside of the scientific realm into the Faith realm. Therefore belief in materialism or creationism is on the same level.

gluadys · Jan 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
And neither have they been verified except by deduction and prediction.

Deduction and prediction cannot verify. They can falsifiy. That is why science sorts out theories on the basis of what has been falsified rather than on the basis of what has been verified.

When a theory consistently resists falsification, in that all the evidence agrees with the predictions, it is considered to be a well-substantiated theory that provides a consistently accurate model of reality.

What we are talking about is what could have happened, not what necessarily did.

You are forgetting the evidence that supports the predictions. When evidence that must be there if the predictions are true, turns out to be there in fact, we are not dealing with just idealistic conjecture.

Using your method I could say that Creationism is true because we do not have Adam's bones or DNA to test and falsify that he is our common ancestor but I can deduce and predict that he is.

No, you cannot, because you have nothing from which to deduce or predict anything. A prediction that is not testable is not a scientific prediction. A prediction that is not derived from a hypothesis is not a scientific prediction. A hypothesis that is not based on observed data is not a scientific hypothesis.

If you have no observed evidence to begin with, there is no basis for hypothesis, deduction, prediction or test. Remember that the purpose of a theory (which will be the outcome of the testing of a hypothesis) is to explain observed data.

So you can't even hypothesize Adam until you have some evidence upon which to build that hypothesis. And without a hypothesis, you have no basis for deduction, and no basis for prediction.

Evolution, from the beginning, has been a way of understanding concrete data about species past and present.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

Do accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

Yes

No

Doesn't matter/neutral/I am in the mist of research

Four is my favorite number

Newbie

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Legend

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~