"Evolution is a theory, not a fact..."

[Vance]

Theories are simply hypothesis with some evidence. Facts (in this context) are theories that are proven. Evolution is not fact. That would mean that everything within it is not up for debate. This is far far far from the truth.

But this is simply incorrect. Where did you get this definition of a scientific theory?

Facts are not theories that are proven. Where did you get this defnition of facts in a scientific context?

You can not make up your own definitions for things and then make conclusory statements based on those made-up definitions.

Did you read the "Evolution is both Fact and Theory" post above? That is what science means when it calls evolution a theory.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Evolution is only a spiritually dangerous thing to teach if Christians teach the kids that believing in evolution means they are not chrisitians.

This is a problem that Christians have created for themselves.

 

[statrei]

Evolution is only a spiritually dangerous thing to teach if Christians teach the kids that believing in evolution means they are not chrisitians.

This is a problem that Christians have created for themselves.

The problem is that evolutionary theory does not explain why greed remains as such a powerful force in society when we have come to the stage where all men understand that only in cooperation can there be progress. Based on evolutionary theory greed should have evolved out of the human race a long time ago. The concept is there but the reality contradicts.

 

[notto]

The problem is that evolutionary theory does not explain why greed remains as such a powerful force in society when we have come to the stage where all men understand that only in cooperation can there be progress. Based on evolutionary theory greed should have evolved out of the human race a long time ago. The concept is there but the reality contradicts.

Evolution deals with the physical ability to reproduce only. Once we are of breeding age or have had children, evolution doesn't really apply, we have successfully won the 'struggle for existence' to the point where our population survives and our individual traits are passed on to the gene pool. Evolution deals with populations, not individuals.

Can you show us how greed either helps or hinders the ability to reproduce within a population? I don't think there is a direct correlation and evolution says nothing about 'greed' as we use the term.

 

[statrei]

Evolution deals with the physical ability to reproduce only. Once we are of breeding age or have had children, evolution doesn't really apply, we have successfully won the 'struggle for existence' to the point where our population survives and our individual traits are passed on to the gene pool. Evolution deals with populations, not individuals.

Can you show us how greed either helps or hinders the ability to reproduce within a population? I don't think there is a direct correlation and evolution says nothing about 'greed' as we use the term.

Since Evolution deals with populations rather than on individuals, one would not expect to find in the population a characteristic that is focussed on the individual rather than on the population. Greed is an essentially individual trait.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Since Evolution deals with populations rather than on individuals, one would not expect to find in the population a characteristic that is focussed on the individual rather than on the population. Greed is an essentially individual trait.

You still are missing the point about this populations vs. individuals trait of evolution.

Evolutionary theory describes what happens to populations and not individuals. However, changes in individuals (like mutations) or characteristics that benefit individuals (like greed) do contribute towards something that can only be described at the population level.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The mechanisms of evolution (genetic drift and natural selection) are observed facts. The extent to which those mechanisms can explain the diversity of life on this planet is theory.

 

[Vance]

The mechanisms of evolution (genetic drift and natural selection) are observed facts. The extent to which those mechanisms can explain the diversity of life on this planet is theory.

Right, there are two sets of known facts we start with:

FACT 1: life on earth as we know it today developed over billions of years, with the development of our current species from earlier species.

FACT 2: natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc, have been observed.

Theory: The mechanisms of Fact 2 are the explanation for Fact 1.

Even if that theory is falsified, we still have to find an explanation for how Fact 1 happened. The Theory of Evolution, as set forth above, is simply the best explanation going, and it really is pretty solid.

 

[artybloke]

The problem is that evolutionary theory does not explain why greed remains as such a powerful force in society

The problem with the theory of gravity is that it doesn't explain why greed remains as such a pwerful force in society, either.

And, you know what? It doesn't matter.

Science isn't morality. It describes the world. It doesn't deal with religious/moral truth. It wasn't meant to. All the theory of evolution does is expalin the mechanism by which life on earth got to be where it is now.

 

[statrei]

The problem with the theory of gravity is that it doesn't explain why greed remains as such a pwerful force in society, either.

And, you know what? It doesn't matter.

Science isn't morality. It describes the world. It doesn't deal with religious/moral truth. It wasn't meant to. All the theory of evolution does is expalin the mechanism by which life on earth got to be where it is now.

Your attempt to equate the law of gravity with the theory of evolution is a clear that you should not be taken seriously. Deal with the question. This is not about morality. It is about what the difference between populations and individuals and whether conflicting characteristics are passed on in the gene pool.

 

[artybloke]

conflicting characteristics

What are conflicting characteristics?

I don't believe that "original sin" is a genetic trait. It's a spiritual quality. How could it be passed on genetically? Again, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about it; any more than the theory of gravity has. If you wish to believe in the Augustinian version of original sin (I don't) you may do so; but don't try and look for a scientific explanation of a spiritual quality.

PS: "greed" is a moral quality. It's not a genetic charictaristic. "Survival instinct" is a genetic characteristic, and this may lead to "greed" (moral) when people decide to put that above other instincts. Animals, of course, having no morals, just follow their instincts. Only humans are responsible; only humans can be greedy. But that's a moral choice, not an instinct.

 

[statrei]

What are conflicting characteristics?

Greed serves the individual yet the evidence is that it is those populations that learn how to cooperate that make significant progress.

 

[notto]

Greed serves the individual yet the evidence is that it is those populations that learn how to cooperate that make significant progress.

If 'greed' is to be addressed by evolutionary theory, then you need to demonstrate that it affects the ability of individual to reproduce, the ability for an individual to live until it can reproduce, or that it provides selective pressure on a population or represents an individual trait that can be selected on by selective pressure of the environment.

Can you do this?

If not, you are trying to use evolutionary theory outside of the scope of an issue it can address (and are not talking about evolutionary theory any more)

Evolution isn't about progress, it is about survival only.

Rattle on.

 

[Vance]

The only connection is that a cooperative species will allow its members to live longer, and thus reproduce more often. The fact in our society that this includes those who would not otherwise reproduce is not unique, really. Many other species have learned that cooperative living benefits the whole. Just look at bees, ants, and all the herd species. Some of these species are even specialized so that there are some that work so that others can reproduce who do not work.

Greed is not always an evolutionary benefit. Thus, in evolutionary terms, those species which will need such cooperative, non-selfish traits, and develop them will survive. Those which need them, but do not develop them, will go extinct. In other cases, greed and selfish behavior are a benefit for a particular species, and again, whether they survive as a species is entirely dependent on the degree to which they have, or develop, this selfish pattern.

When you consider that 99% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct, you can see that it is those particular species who get it all right that survive.

 

[statrei]

If 'greed' is to be addressed by evolutionary theory, then you need to demonstrate that it affects the ability of individual to reproduce, the ability for an individual to live until it can reproduce, or that it provides selective pressure on a population or represents an individual trait that can be selected on by selective pressure of the environment.

Can you do this?

If not, you are trying to use evolutionary theory outside of the scope of an issue it can address (and are not talking about evolutionary theory any more)

Evolution isn't about progress, it is about survival only.

Rattle on.

I hope you won't be offended if I choose to accept a model that accounts for all aspects of human growth and development instead of only one.

 

[notto]

I hope you won't be offended if I choose to accept a model that accounts for all aspects of human growth and development instead of only one.

Thats fine. Just don't call it 'evolution' . Perhaps sociology or philosophy is more in line with what you are discussing.

Evolution: 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.

 

[Vance]

I hope you won't be offended if I choose to accept a model that accounts for all aspects of human growth and development instead of only one.

What is the basis for believing a single model has to exist that explains both physical development and social development?

Especially when one considers that Man is God's special creation here on this earth and His interaction with Man, His plan for Man's relationship with Him and all else that goes with this, would indicate that once a we became "Man" and in this relationship, that Man's existence would necessarily vary a great deal from the rest of His creation.

 

[statrei]

What is the basis for believing a single model has to exist that explains both physical development and social development?

Especially when one considers that Man is God's special creation here on this earth and His interaction with Man, His plan for Man's relationship with Him and all else that goes with this, would indicate that once a we became "Man" and in this relationship, that Man's existence would necessarily vary a great deal from the rest of His creation.

You are free to posit that we "became" Man. You are free to posit anything you desire. But please don't give the impression that it "follows necessarily."

 

[statrei]

Thats fine. Just don't call it 'evolution' . Perhaps sociology or philosophy is more in line with what you are discussing.

Evolution: 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.

I never claimed to be an expert in evolution. It has far more gaps than the alternative. (Please don't try to label me a Creationist just because I believe the universe is the product of a divine act of Creation. I have no idea what Creationists believe).

 

[notto]

I never claimed to be an expert in evolution. It has far more gaps than the alternative. (Please don't try to label me a Creationist just because I believe the universe is the product of a divine act of Creation. I have no idea what Creationists believe).

Then you should use this as an opportunity to learn about evolution. My guess is that what you perceive as "gaps" are simply issues that evolution doesn't (and can't) address, such as greed.

Evolution doesn't deal with the universe as a product of anything. That would be cosmology or various other fields of science. Evolution is confined to biology in its subject matter.

I'm not trying to label you as anything, just clarifying what you are discussing and showing that it doesn't have much to do with the evolution and certainly can't be considered a 'gap' in evolution.

As was pointed out, the theory of gravity doesn't address 'greed' or the universie as a product of a divine act of creation. Does that mean that these are gaps in the theory of gravity? Of course not.