Evolution is just a theory!

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not even after it dies?

No.

 

[[serious]]

Correct. It's also not observable or repeatable.

Much like all forensic evidence in a murder investigation.

in the absence of video, the murder is neither observable nor repeatable.

 

[justlookinla]

Much like all forensic evidence in a murder investigation.

in the absence of video, the murder is neither observable nor repeatable.

Is the scientific method observable and repeatable?

 

[[serious]]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to a biological being.

Second law of thermodynamics applies to everything. To counteract this, we would need some massive source of energy pouring into the planet. *looks up* Oh yeah, there's a giant ball of fusing hydrogen nearby. That would be a good energy source.

Most (all?) protein folding is driven primarily by entropy as well. "disorder" isn't really a great description of entropy because it's too easy to misinterpret. Unfortunately, I don't have a great replacement way of explaining it. It took me until my junior year of college, after having entropy covered in I can't even tell you how many classes, to really get a grasp of what was meant.

 

[[serious]]

Is the scientific method observable and repeatable?

Yes. For example, we have lots of ways of testing the models of human evolution. We have tested it extensively, and each of those tests has borne out. Much like a theory that a murder victim was shot by steve in the parlor with a 9mm beretta might be tested various ways. You could use ballistic analysis to see if the injury is in line with what a 9mm would produce. You could check to see if there is a record of Steve owning a 9mm. You could check for 9mm casings at the crime scene. You could check steve's hands for gun powder residue (if he didn't have time to wash them). Eventually, as your predictions keep getting born out, you have a strong case for steve being the murderer.

Likewise, if you have a model for humans having a common ancestor with other great apes, you can make predictions and look for that evidence. You can see if you can find transitionals, you can look for shared ERVs, you can look for other speciation events, etc. Eventually, as all those predictions are born out, you have a really strong case for evolution producing humans.

 

[JacksBratt]

Much like all forensic evidence in a murder investigation.

in the absence of video, the murder is neither observable nor repeatable.

Have we ever incarcerated an innocent man? or woman?

Is this not the biggest reason that people shy away from or object to the death penalty?

Evidence that is available is not always the evidence that tells the truth.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes. For example, we have lots of ways of testing the models of human evolution. We have tested it extensively, and each of those tests has borne out. Much like a theory that a murder victim was shot by steve in the parlor with a 9mm beretta might be tested various ways. You could use ballistic analysis to see if the injury is in line with what a 9mm would produce. You could check to see if there is a record of Steve owning a 9mm. You could check for 9mm casings at the crime scene. You could check steve's hands for gun powder residue (if he didn't have time to wash them). Eventually, as your predictions keep getting born out, you have a strong case for steve being the murderer.

Likewise, if you have a model for humans having a common ancestor with other great apes, you can make predictions and look for that evidence. You can see if you can find transitionals, you can look for shared ERVs, you can look for other speciation events, etc. Eventually, as all those predictions are born out, you have a really strong case for evolution producing humans.

The model should be about much more than common ancestry. In fact, common ancestry doesn't address the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. There's no observable and repeatable evidence for the 'how', thus no scientific method.

 

[lucaspa]

Last 10 years discovery from fossils finds in China shows that evolution is just a theory!
There are no evidence for macro-evolution! It is only micro-evolution all the way!

First, what do you mean by that first sentence? The last 20 years of fossil finds in China have only strengthened the theropod dino to bird lineage. Now there have been discoveries including species with "half-evolved" feathers. Please reference the papers you think throw the sequence into doubt.
2. K Padian and LM Chiappe, The origin of birds and their flight. Scientific American, 278: 38-47, 1998 (Feb.).
3. P J Currie et al., Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China, Nature 393, 753; 1998. (June 25). Reports summarized in A Gibbons, Dinosaur fossils, in fine feather, show link to birds. Science 280: 2051 (26 June) 1998.
6. M Nowell, First came feathers. Natural History 107: 33, Sept. 1998. Summary of recent discoveries in China. Sinosauropteryx did not have true feathers; intermediates between scales and feathers.
8. E Stokstad, Tiny, feathered dino is most birdlike yet. Science 290: 1871-1872, Dec. 2000.
9. http://research.amnh.org/vertpaleo/dinobird.html 130 mya theropod with feathers. Last accessed 1-27-02
14. Paper describing transition from theropod running to bird running: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k737802828154263/

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "macroevolution". Since the biological reality is species, macroevolution = speciation.
Let's see how good Christian forums archives are. I posted lists of transitional fossil series: http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

There are 3 types of transitional series.
1. Transitional individuals. These are series of individual fossils -- or fossils of individuals -- within a species that document the transition of one species to another. Many times the series of transitional individuals continues from species to species to species to new higher phyla: genera, family, and even class. My previous post referenced a few of those transitional series. That is "macroevolution" by any definition.
2. Transitional species. These are series of fossils representing species that go from species to species to higher taxa such as family and class. The series of fossils in the whale and horse lineages are transitional species. Oftentimes there are also transitional individuals within that series linking some species to other species.
3. Transitional individuals. These are individual fossils that clearly lie between 2 different "higher taxa". Archeopteryx started out as a transitional individual. Archie is a mosaic of dino and bird features. Now the dino to bird lineage consists of transitional species.

The only biological reality is species. "Higher taxa" are simply groups of species. So speciation is macroevolution. And here there are hundreds of documented instances of observed speciation in real time -- today -- both in the lab and in the wild. I've posted many that I have come across in searching the scientific literature: http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

BTW, "theory" does not mean "wild guess". Hypotheses and theories are both statements about the physical universe. Each can be:
1. Untested
2. Tested and falsified
3. Tested and supported

There are 5 theories lumped under the generic title "evolution". Evolution has been very thoroughly tested and very strongly supported. So yes, evolution is a theory. But it is such a strongly supported theory that, like heliocentrism, we consider it "fact". Unless and until there is new data discovered to falsify it.

 

[lucaspa]

Probably because it is the only theory in its realm of study.

AV, you ignored why evolution is the only theory on biological diversity. Because it is the only surviving theory. It is not as if there were no precedent theories before evolution was proposed or that there have not been alternative theories before and since. It is that all the other theories -- such as Special Creation -- have been falsified.

Think of it this way. In the realm of study of the solar system, heliocentric theory is the "only theory". Why? Because geocentrism got falsified and heliocentrism is left.

From the 1500s to 1859, there were other theories "in the realm of study". Specifically, Special Creation was the accepted scientific theory. It was partner to the theory of "constancy of species". Up until 1830, the theory was of only a single creative event. However, from 1830 to 1859 the theory was modified to have several creative events during earth's history. Because young earth was falsified by 1830.

Within evolution, there have been several theories (and still are) about how evolution has happened. Lamarckism, panspermia, phyletic gradualism, Modern Synthesis, punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you ignored why evolution is the only theory on biological diversity. Because it is the only surviving theory.

As I understand it, theories today are not like theories of yesteryear.

Ever since the scientific method came out, theories have gotten a lot stronger, or have disappeared by way of exosure to being false.

Thus they were never really theories in the first place.

So, it's not that it is the "only surviving theory" -- it's that there were never any other theories to contest it in the first place.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Second law of thermodynamics applies to everything. To counteract this, we would need some massive source of energy pouring into the planet. *looks up* Oh yeah, there's a giant ball of fusing hydrogen nearby. That would be a good energy source.

Most (all?) protein folding is driven primarily by entropy as well. "disorder" isn't really a great description of entropy because it's too easy to misinterpret. Unfortunately, I don't have a great replacement way of explaining it. It took me until my junior year of college, after having entropy covered in I can't even tell you how many classes, to really get a grasp of what was meant.

Yes, I do know that the SLoT (did I get that right?) does apply to Earth and everything in it, but not in the way that creationists want it to apply. They think that due to Earth existing as long as it has and evolution acting on life on Earth as long as it has, it means that (for some messed up reason) the evolution should make things less 'advanced' (it was the only word I could think of for that), i.e. devolve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I do know that the SLoT (did I get that right?) does apply to Earth and everything in it, but not in the way that creationists want it to apply. They think that due to Earth existing as long as it has and evolution acting on life on Earth as long as it has, it means that (for some messed up reason) the evolution should make things less 'advanced' (it was the only word I could think of for that), i.e. devolve.

Is the gene pool getting worse?

It was "very good" in Genesis 1.

Now man & animals are being born with genetic flaws.

So ... in your opinion ... is the gene pool worse than it was in Genesis 1?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is the gene pool getting worse?

It was "very good" in Genesis 1.

Now man & animals are being born with genetic flaws.

So ... in your opinion ... is the gene pool worse than it was in Genesis 1?

Since I don't believe that Genesis 1 is literal history... no, I don't.

 

[Colter]

Genesis is just a pseudo-biographical story written by the priest for the scattered Israelite audience. This should be obvious to common sense, but religious superstition causes man to suspend common sense mistaking it for faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since I don't believe that Genesis 1 is literal history... no, I don't.

Then why didn't you say so in the first place; instead of saying this?

(for some messed up reason)

That "messed up reason," as you called it, is what we call a "corrupted gene pool."

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is just a pseudo-biographical story written by the priest ...

What priest?

 

[[serious]]

Is the gene pool getting worse?

It was "very good" in Genesis 1.

Now man & animals are being born with genetic flaws.

So ... in your opinion ... is the gene pool worse than it was in Genesis 1?

We could test that. We could look to see if the rates of genetic disorders are currently increasing. I not aware of any such trend, but it gives you something to look for.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then why didn't you say so in the first place; instead of saying this?

Because that's not what I was responding to.

That "messed up reason," as you called it, is what we call a "corrupted gene pool."

I will admit that 'messed up' might not have been the right word to use, but I couldn't think of anything else to use.
The idea of a 'corrupted gene pool' is ridiculous because we see no evidence for that in anywhere we look (and please don't reply with that insipid comment of "If reality disagrees with the Bible, reality can take a hike.")

 

[AV1611VET]

We could test that. We could look to see if the rates of genetic disorders are currently increasing.

Even if they weren't, people are being born with genetic disorders.

Yet in Genesis 1, the gene pool was at its purest.

So what does that tell you happened between Genesis 1 and now?

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea of a 'corrupted gene pool' is ridiculous because we see no evidence for that in anywhere we look (and please don't reply with that insipid comment of "If reality disagrees with the Bible, reality can take a hike.")

No one is being born with genetic deficiencies???

As I understand it, Siamese cats hold the record on being born with something wrong with them.