Evolution??

[ifriit]

John MacNeil: How very amusing! Evolutionists spend a great deal of time berating anyone who doesn't believe in their theory and then the minute someone questions their theory and asks for an explanation of a recent event, why...they scatter like a flock of perturbed chickens who see the farmer's wife sharpening the axe on the grinding wheel.

Does that mean you're going to actually start talking about evolution now? I've been waiting 3 pages for you to start!

John MacNeil: Evolutionists like to parade their knowledge and understanding of reality. If anyone questions it, they puritanically raise their heads and sniff, and proclaim...it's all in the Evidence! Science...don't you know?

[more nonsense snipped]

Please come back when you have something to discuss, rather than simply whinging.

 

[John MacNeil]

What?.....No Science? Isn't "evolution" a scientific theory? I suppose I must be misinformed. I was under the impression that "evolution" was a scientific theory,...and here it appears to be a "new age" theory, or something. Well... I suppose that had to be the case, since it doesn't have any scientific evidence to substantiate it. Funny how some people could read a little about natural selection and then build it up into a theory of everything. I guess they just wanted a "superstar" theory for some reason. Maybe so they could bash Christians with it, do you think? Hmmmm!

So, let's see...the best argument you evolutinists can come up with is that I used the term species when you think I should have used the term race? Are you serious? Race is just a layperson's term that was used to distinguish people of different color and other characteristics. Species, in the scientific sense, is denoting the same thing. Perhaps you guys were thinking of "Genus"? But who can tell with evolutionists, since the epitome of their theory is just fantasy?

Anyway, to get back to the core of the discussion, what is the scientific evidence that explains how Cro-magnon humans evolved from Neanderthals or from whatever? If you evolutionists believe in evolution, then tell us the core of that belief so that we can believe in it too. Why is it such a big secret? Do you believe in evolution because it is fashionable? Is that it? Some cool people believe in evolution and told you it was truth so you believe in it too? Surely you understand that I'm not asking for the old, hard to explain evidence, like how it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into mammals but after the "great extinction" 65 million year ago, it only took 50 million year to change all life into a whole new class of life system, all with entirely different phylogeny than from before the extinction? No, I'm not asking that, but I will later, if you can satisfactorily explain how there was such a drastic and rapid change from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon, or however that you believe modern humans came to be the way that they are.

So let's see your science. The foundation of your belief. That's all we want from you for now. We don't want the childish comparisons between pots and kettles, and we don't want the obfuscations, and we certainly don't want the character attacks. We just want facts!

 

[Morat]

Race is just a layperson's term that was used to distinguish people of different color and other characteristics. Species, in the scientific sense, is denoting the same thing. Perhaps you guys were thinking of "Genus"? But who can tell with evolutionists, since the epitome of their theory is just fantasy?

  *hehe*. Perhaps you should, just on the off chance you got it wrong, look up the definition of "species", mmkay?

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Well... I suppose that had to be the case, since it doesn't have any scientific evidence to substantiate it.

Yes, and all those scientists are stupid liars...

Funny how some people could read a little about natural selection and then build it up into a theory of everything.

Funny how some people who demonstrably know nothing of what they speak act like they're smarter than everyone else.

I guess they just wanted a "superstar" theory for some reason. Maybe so they could bash Christians with it, do you think? Hmmmm!

Quick! Someone better tell the Pope!

So, let's see...the best argument you evolutinists can come up with is that I used the term species when you think I should have used the term race? Are you serious? Race is just a layperson's term that was used to distinguish people of different color and other characteristics. Species, in the scientific sense, is denoting the same thing.

Bzzt. Wrong. "Species" and "Race" are not the same thing.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

Perhaps you guys were thinking of "Genus"? But who can tell with evolutionists, since the epitome of their theory is just fantasy?

Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

Anyway, to get back to the core of the discussion, what is the scientific evidence that explains how Cro-magnon humans evolved from Neanderthals or from whatever?

Observed variation in individuals plus the observed influence of selection acting over time.

If you evolutionists believe in evolution, then tell us the core of that belief so that we can believe in it too. Why is it such a big secret?

Evolution isn't a belief any more than quantum mechanics is a belief. Both are scientific theories that explain observed natural phenomena.

Do you believe in evolution because it is fashionable? Is that it? Some cool people believe in evolution and told you it was truth so you believe in it too?

Does you mother know you're gay?

Surely you understand that I'm not asking for the old, hard to explain evidence, like how it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into mammals but after the "great extinction" 65 million year ago, it only took 50 million year to change all life into a whole new class of life system, all with entirely different phylogeny than from before before the extinction?

Oh no! Genius John has falsified evolution! Whatever shall we do?

Oh, wait a minute. What if some life *survived* the "great extinction"? Maybe warm furry things that could cope with the global winter? Wouldn't they come out of the catastrophe with a head start over other life forms?

Maybe John's not a genius after all...

No, I'm not asking that, but I will later, if you can satisfactorily explain how there was such a drastic and rapid change from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon...

Define "drastic" and "rapid". The change from earlier humans to Cro-Magnon appears neither drastic nor rapid to me.

So let's see your science. The foundation of your belief. That's all we want from you for now. We don't want the childish comparisons between pots and kettles, and we don't want the obfuscations, and we certainly don't want the character attacks. We just want facts!

As requested:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
What?.....No Science? Isn't "evolution" a scientific theory? I suppose I must be misinformed. I was under the impression that "evolution" was a scientific theory,...and here it appears to be a "new age" theory, or something. Well... I suppose that had to be the case, since it doesn't have any scientific evidence to substantiate it. Funny how some people could read a little about natural selection and then build it up into a theory of everything. I guess they just wanted a "superstar" theory for some reason. Maybe so they could bash Christians with it, do you think? Hmmmm!

So, let's see...the best argument you evolutinists can come up with is that I used the term species when you think I should have used the term race? Are you serious? Race is just a layperson's term that was used to distinguish people of different color and other characteristics. Species, in the scientific sense, is denoting the same thing. Perhaps you guys were thinking of "Genus"? But who can tell with evolutionists, since the epitome of their theory is just fantasy?

Anyway, to get back to the core of the discussion, what is the scientific evidence that explains how Cro-magnon humans evolved from Neanderthals or from whatever? If you evolutionists believe in evolution, then tell us the core of that belief so that we can believe in it too. Why is it such a big secret? Do you believe in evolution because it is fashionable? Is that it? Some cool people believe in evolution and told you it was truth so you believe in it too? Surely you understand that I'm not asking for the old, hard to explain evidence, like how it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into mammals but after the "great extinction" 65 million year ago, it only took 50 million year to change all life into a whole new class of life system, all with entirely different phylogeny than from before the extinction? No, I'm not asking that, but I will later, if you can satisfactorily explain how there was such a drastic and rapid change from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon, or however that you believe modern humans came to be the way that they are.

So let's see your science. The foundation of your belief. That's all we want from you for now. We don't want the childish comparisons between pots and kettles, and we don't want the obfuscations, and we certainly don't want the character attacks. We just want facts!

From Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, table 15.1 page 448:

Biological Species Concepts:

A species is a group of individuals fully fertile inter se, but barred from interbreeding with other similar groups by its physiological properties. (producing either incompatibility of parents, or sterility of the hybrids, or both). (Dobzhansky 1935)

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mahr 1942)

Evolutionary Species Concept:

A species is a single lineage (an ancestral-descendant sequence) of populations or organisms that maintains its identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate. (Wiley 1978)

Phylogenetic Species Concepts:

A phylogenetic species is an irreducible (basal) cluster of organisms that is diagnosably distinct from other such clusters, and within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent. (Cracraft 1989)

A species is the smallest monophyletic group of common ancestry and descent. (de Queiroz and Donoghue 1990)

Recognition Species Concept:

A species is the most inclusive population of individual biparental organisms that share a common fertilization system. (Paterson 1985)

Cohesion Species Concept:

A species is the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. (Templeton 1989)

Ecological Species Concept:

A species is a lineage (or a closely related set of lineages) the occupies an adaptive zone minimally diffent from that of any other lineage in its range which evolves separately from all lineages outside its range. (Van Valen 1976)

Internodal Species Concept:

Individual organisms are conspecific by virtue of their common membership in a part of the genealogical network between two permanent splitting events or between a permanent split and an extinction event. (Kornet 1993)

OK now, these are several definitions of species as are used in the scientific literature.  Which one do you think supports your idea that race is equal to species?

The reason this is important in this particular argument is because you are demanding we explain and provide evidence for something that you are misunderstanding.  It's like being in an argument with someone about the US civil war, and they keep insisting it took place in Canada, and then ask you to explain why Ontario was pro-slavery.  You aren't making any sense.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Hello? John? What did you think of them facts, John? Why did you start another thread about Santa Claus? John?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Stormy
"Evolution??

Note to Susan: All evolutionist do not lie... many have just been duped.

Stormy, this is the link to Morris' quote them out of context site.  Thank you for the link, I needed the reference, but otherwise it is worthless.  It has been long known that the ICR takes quotes out of context to have them appear to mean anti-evolution in contradiction to the point the author was actually making.  I call this false witness. What do you call it?

The ICR tried this tactic at the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial.  The scientific witnesses took quote after quote and showed how they were taken out of context.  I'll give you just one example:

"During the Arkansas trial, Stephen Gould pointed out one example of misleading quotation.  In discussing the Lewis overthrust in Montana, Whitcomb and Morris want to suggest that the underlying shales have been undisturbed, so that geologists can legitimately conclude that older rock has not been forced over younger rock.  They quote from an 1886 report, in which the following sentence occurs: 'Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many years ago' (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, 187: footnote 1).  As Gould remarked, the refernce to 'staying on the road' suggest that a contrastive sentence might be coming.  And indeed, the next sentence explains that those who take a closer look can see evidence of disturbance.  Whitcomb and Morris do not quote that sentence.  Perhaps this is because it conflicts with the point they are trying to defend.  Or perhaps we should accept the explanation that Gish is reported to have offered at the Arkansas trial: 'After all, you have to stop quoting somewhere.' " Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science, pp 181-182, 1982.

Gish himself is so aware of his own tactic that he insists that people must quote only whole paragraphs from his work. Do you see any whole paragraphs in Morris' list?  Doesn't that tell you something? 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by MSBS
From Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, table 15.1 page 448:

Fantastic! Someone else who has read Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbook!  Now, if we could only get Stormy, JohnR7, and JohnMacneil to read Futuyma we could all go out for a beer instead of spending time on the board.

 

[Willowolf]

Hey Seesaw, let me get this straight, you said quote: "In religions people go around telling people that the stuff they're saying is true without any evidence of it." So, if evolution is true give me ONE simple evidence that proves the reality of evolution.
Let me quote you again, you said quote: "Sorry, but evolution isn't a faith or built on faith, it's a theory." You say evolution isn't a Faith or based on Faith, it's a Theory, right? Well, if a theory is an an unproven hypothesis, yet you believe it, what are you basing your belief on?
God Bless, Willowolf : )

 

[lithium.]

Willowolf:

Hey Seesaw, let me get this straight, you said quote: "In religions people go around telling people that the stuff they're saying is true without any evidence of it."

seesaw:

I said "That’s why science is more truthful that any religion. In religions people go around telling people that the stuff there saying is true without any evidence of it. But science never says that any theory is true. If a theory is found to be wrong they say it’s wrong and not true.”

Willowolf:

So, if evolution is true give me ONE simple evidence that proves the reality of evolution.

seesaw:

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

I can't get anymore I have to goto class, but if you want more goto discovery.com, or pbs.org there is a lot of places if you just look.

Willowolf:


Let me quote you again, you said quote: "Sorry, but evolution isn't a faith or built on faith, it's a theory." You say evolution isn't a Faith or based on Faith, it's a Theory, right? Well, if a theory is an an unproven hypothesis, yet you believe it, what are you basing your belief on?
God Bless, Willowolf : )


seesaw:

Well you are right when you believe in something you have faith in it. I do have faith, but not in evolution (because I know its true) but in the evidence for evolution because the evidence is very credible like DNA evidence I think put my faith in the right place.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Willowolf
You say evolution isn't a Faith or based on Faith, it's a Theory, right? Well, if a theory is an an unproven hypothesis, yet you believe it, what are you basing your belief on?
God Bless, Willowolf : )

But a theory is not an unproven hypothesis.  You are basing your argument on a false premise.  Here are the definition of scientific terms by the National Academy of Sciences:

http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Note that well-substantiated part.  Currently valid theories have been well-tested and substantiated.  If they weren't, they would join the long list of falsified theories.  Young earth creationism is such a falsified theory.

 

[Willowolf]

Hey Lucaspa,
There is also a well-substantiated theory and practice that radiation treatement can cure Cancer. Well, your "well-substantiated" theory didn't work for my Mom. We caught the cancer at an early stage and immediately began treatments here in the States. She died a year later.

 

[seebs]

Willowolf, first, let me say that I'm sorry for your loss.

I think you're mistaking different levels of "theory". I have a well-substantiated theory that the corner store is open 'til 9 most days. This theory remains true even if they close at 6 on Christmas. The prediction made about radiation therapy isn't "this will always work" but "this will improve your chances". Since the claim is a statistical one, it doesn't fail when the treatment fails once - nor does it fail if the treatment succeeds once. It would fail if, say, we found a category of types of cancer which are never, or always, successfully treated that way; this would lead us to revise our theory.

 

[Willowolf]

Hey seebs thanks for the encouragement, I really apreciate it.
And yeah, your right it is a different type of theory. It is a statistic that can improve the chances of survival. You're right.

I guess my point is: that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact.
Yeah, I know, you're thinking: "I could say the same thing about creation." : ) This creation vs. evolution discussion leaves alot of gaps on both sides. I just wish I could prove to you the security I have in my faith and Salvation.
I can't base my life on this statement: "Creation is a Fact."
But I can base it on this statement: "God is Love."
God Bless, Willowolf : )

 

[lithium.]

theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact

A theory is analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.

 

[IcemanV1]

A theory is also:
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
-Abstract reasoning; speculation

All of which are not based on the Facts!!

 

[lithium.]

Dictionaries are fun.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Willowolf
Hey Lucaspa,
There is also a well-substantiated theory and practice that radiation treatement can cure Cancer. Well, your "well-substantiated" theory didn't work for my Mom. We caught the cancer at an early stage and immediately began treatments here in the States. She died a year later.

I am sorry for your loss.  You have misstated the theory. The theory is that radiation is an effective treatment for some types of cancer.  Now, "effective" does not mean that it is effective for 100% of people that it is tried upon. In biology, individuals are different.  I don't know of any drug or treatment that is 100% effective on 100% of patients.  There are people out there who have headaches and aspirin or Tylenol has no effect on them.

Like your misstatement of theory to begin with, this is a misstatement of the theory of the effect of radiation treatment on cancer.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by IcemanV1
A theory is also:
-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge
-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
-Abstract reasoning; speculation

All of which are not based on the Facts!!

But that isn't how the word is used in science. Disciplines define words in special ways for that discipline.  Look through any contract you have ever signed (your house mortgage, for instance) and you will see words there defined differently than common usage.

In science, a theory is a collection of statements about the physical universe.  A currently valid theory is a collection of statements that have been tested and well-substantiated.

Of course, all this talk about theories is trying to avoid the real issue: DATA.  It is attempting to gain by semantics what is denied by the data.

The reason creationists try to make evolution a faith is to gain entrance to public schools. The courts have ruled that creationism can't be taught because it is a religious faith.  One tactic to get around that decision is to declare evolution also a faith. Therefore, if evolution is taught, then creationism can be taught because, according to this logic, both are "faith".

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Willowolf
I guess my point is: that a theory is a theory, and a fact is a fact. 

Even this is not as clear cut as you would like.

Take the statement: the earth is round.   Is that a speculation, hypothesis, theory, or fact?  During the course of history, it has been all of them.  Initial observations -- simply looking around -- seemed to show that the earth is flat.  Other observations -- watching ships disappear over the horizon -- caused people to speculate that the earth was round.  That became a hypothesis that Erasthones tested in his famous shadow in a well experiment.  Now, we have so many observations consistent with the theory that the earth is round that everyone considers it a "fact".

What happens is that when a theory accumulates a lot of supporting evidence, we decide that it is (provisionally) true and treat it as a fact.  We treat the theory that the earth is round as a fact and use that "fact" to plot courses for ships and airplanes. That the ships and planes end up at their destination provides more support for the theory.

Evolution is like that. It has so much supporting evidence that we accept it as (provisionally) true and a fact.  We then use evolution to construct more complex explanations and devise experiments to test new treatments and drugs. That the medical treatments work becomes more support for evolution.

"God created the universe" is a theological statement that evolution does not address.  What evolution says is: IF God created the universe, then this is how He did it."