Is evolution a theory?

[TheReasoner]

Who proved me wrong?

And either show me the proof, or I'll take your point like I do most of your others -- as emotional remarks, not scientific standpoints.

There are others here -- atheists, in fact -- that claim there is no such a thing as 'proof'; so this should be interesting.

Want to argue epistemology? Really? They are right, nothing can be proven. I agree with Popper though, falsification IS possible. Besides, you cannot argue that 'certain knowledge is impossible, therefore *insert well documented facts* can be arbitrarily dismissed'. We can say - accurately - that we do not KNOW that if someone jumps up they will fall down again. But it's a pretty darn safe bet. Why? Because we have a lot of gathered data (experience) that supports the assumption. And nothing that counters it. The same is true for evolution. EVERYTHING points to it being a good and accurate model, NOTHING points against it. We observe it, we use it, we can describe it and know how and why it happens. We can see our past written in our genes, and thus trace our past. Yet; you ignore this. Either from ignorance, hubris or arrogance. But you still must ignore VAST amount of solid evidence to concoct your position. Tell me: Why should this be respected?

Who proved you wrong? How about life itself? Run by talkorigins AV, much is briefly listed there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Want to argue epistemology?

I'm not interested in Karl Popper, I'm not interested in talkoranugtang, I'm interested in faith guardian, who said I was spreading lies, and even shouted the word 'proven' at me, in the context of saying I've been proven wrong.

Are you backtracking on the infinitive 'to prove', now?

If so, I commend you for knowing when you've been called out.

If not, then I'll ask a second time, who proved me wrong?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Who proved me wrong?

And either show me the proof, or I'll take your point like I do most of your others -- as emotional remarks, not scientific standpoints.

There are others here -- atheists, in fact -- that claim there is no such a thing as 'proof'; so this should be interesting.

I have. On many occasions. Using many proofs.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm not interested in Karl Popper, I'm not interested in talkoranugtang, I'm interested in faith guardian, who said I was spreading lies, and even shouted the word 'proven' at me, in the context of saying I've been proven wrong.

Are you backtracking on the infinitive 'to prove', now?

If so, I commend you for knowing when you've been called out.

If not, then I'll ask a second time, who proved me wrong?

I think pretty much everyone here who is not a creationist has, AV. You have made many claims proven wrong.

And yes, you ARE spreading lies. When you spread a falsified position as if it was not only supported by heavy evidence, but proven right you are spreading lies. Knowingly or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, you ARE spreading lies. When you spread a falsified position as if it was not only supported by heavy evidence, but proven right you are spreading lies. Knowingly or not.

I'm going to take this with a grain of salt and just tell you to have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm going to take this with a grain of salt and just tell you to have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

Hah. AV; Can you point to one single thing in creation which points to your perception being right? I can't. I've looked pretty hard but I have not found anything. Have you? The only thing you have in favor of your view is... Your view. Your interpretation of the bible which is rather new. 1700s, right? The church fathers did not to my knowledge share your position on this topic. The ancient churches do not. You have... Yourselves. That's it.

 

[Naraoia]

You have to say that because there is no macro.

First, I don't "have to" say anything, second, I said that because "speciation and above" is the technical definition of macroevolution. I don't like that definition either, but it's the only reasonably rigorous one.

So lets just say change over time proves everything. That way you don't have to do or prove anything.

You say what you want, I have the fossil record and molecular phylogenetics on my side

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alright, fair deal, they could create their own definition used within their own "field". However I'm not giving in this easily
There are various problems with this too.

1. Creationists often claim their own positions are valid scientific positions.
2. Creationists often use the word to create an illusion of validity to their own arbitrary claims, for example by the statement "An equally valid theory is..." queue arbitrary nonsense.
3. Creationists often use the word to discredit the scientific term, for example by the statement "It is only a theory"

IF they want to play at being scientists they should adhere to the principles, methods and definitions that apply. While they might use the word 'theory' about creationism in their own churches and circles (and that's -grudgingly- okay)

Ahah!

they cannot also claim to be using a scientific definition when this is not the case. Viz. they cannot say "Evolution is just a theory, scientists even say so" and use the word theory as if the definition we use is the same as they use in their own circles.

Agreed, that is equivocation, and is a logical fallacy.

In other words I move that if they do want to use their own definition common decency and integrity dictates that they adjust statements accordingly, if they wish to define creationism as a theory or set of theories then the statement 'the theory of evolution' needs to be redefined. Perhaps to 'the scientific theory of evolution' or something along those lines. They cannot with integrity conjur up a definition which they use and then pretend it means the same and has the same validity as the scientific term. To use your example, it would be like trying to use the word 'kernel' as evidence that sweetcorn is a rather crucial component in operating systems for example; Such a mix-and-match use of word definitions cannot be said to be valid, can it?

It's the same infuriating underhanded effort that makes Deepak Chopra so slimey - he works to sell eastern spiritualist to gullible western audiences by hiding it under the guise of quantum mechanics. Since the common man is likely to know too little of quantum mechanics, and even less about Asian mysticism, to properly discern fact from fiction, Chopra is then free to peddle his nonsense to the masses (he is, in a way, a more cunning version of Oprah).

The problem is that he isn't using quantum mechanics in the way people think. He admits (begrudgingly) that he uses it as a metaphor, and has admitted he doesn't know all that much about it. And it could be argued that he has always used the term like this in his books - we assumed he was referring to the usual, scientific theory, not his own baffling concoction that he calls 'quantum mechanics'.

And therein lies the problem. Creationists use the word 'theory' the same way Chopra uses the term 'quantum mechanics' - they conflate their won cocamame definition with that of the actual, technical definition people know.

You can use any title you want (I could refer to myself as Pope Wiccan_Child on official UK documentation, if I so wish) - except the use of the word 'Doctor' insofar as people might construe you as a real doctor. Likewise, Chopra and the Creationists (it sounds like a band) are masquerading their odd definitions as the scientific ones, which really just underlines how sad their respective positions are.

My problem, thus, is that it seems creationists abuse the word by mixing definitions in order to discredit and confound any opposition. That is not something I am okay with to be honest. Now, if they were to say "The Theory of evolution is not a Law" that would be correct. They could even say that The scientific theory of evolution is an explanation for the development of life which is not shared by the creationists, who adhere to a non-scientific theory called intelligent design/creationism.". That would be a statement which is not at fault for definition abuse. Not as far as I can see anyway.

However, as they in my experience normally try to pass id and creationism both off as scientifically valid perceptions - which they are not - this is not the case of valid differences between different definitions of a word but rather an example of intellectual dishonest behavior.

They just want to use the qualifier 'scientific', but if they outright used it they're be lampooned back to the 17[sup]th[/sup] Century. Instead, they've taken a word with heavily scientific connotations - 'theory' - and stuck their own facsimile of the word onto their ideas.

 

[Astridhere]

I'm going to take this with a grain of salt and just tell you to have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

Oh well AV, if 32 voters, evolutionists included, suggest TOE is still a theory, then they must also suggest that what they call evidence is not sufficiently convincing to call evolution factual. I agree.

Evolutionists do not have fossils and genomics on their side. Evolutionists do have misrepresentation on their side though, and lots of it, in support of other misrepresentations. eg sea lion=ambulocetus natans, Indohyus=deer, the tree of life that has been reduced to the myth of 1% or less.

Evolution is chaotic and therefore has little, if any, predictive ability to test. Speculation in hindsight does not denote predictive ability. eg human/chimp Y chromosome.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

Biblical Creationist predictions on the other hand are reliable. One example is creationists predicted that if God created there would be no need for 'junk DNA'. As research advances this is exactly what researchers are confirming as time goes on.

Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome


If confirmation of predictions is the basis for demonstrating a theory is factual then I would say creationists have the upper hand.

 

[TheReasoner]

Oh well AV, if 32 voters, evolutionists included, suggest TOE is still a theory, then they must also suggest that what they call evidence is not sufficiently convincing to call evolution factual. I agree.

*sigh*
Apparently you need to check the definition of the word as used in a scientific context.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh well AV, if 32 voters, evolutionists included, suggest TOE is still a theory, then they must also suggest that what they call evidence is not sufficiently convincing to call evolution factual. I agree.

Then you clearly haven't been reading any of the posts, nor do you understand what scientists mean when they use the term 'theory' and 'fact' - atoms aren't a fact, they're a theory. A theory with a lot of evidence, but a theory nonetheless. Not calling something a 'fact' doesn't belie uncertainty; rather, we call it a 'theory' underlines our certainty.

Evolutionists do not have fossils and genomics on their side. Evolutionists do have misrepresentation on their side though, and lots of it, in support of other misrepresentations. eg sea lion=ambulocetus natans, Indohyus=deer, the tree of life that has been reduced to the myth of 1% or less.

Evolution is chaotic and therefore has little, if any, predictive ability to test. Speculation in hindsight does not denote predictive ability. eg human/chimp Y chromosome.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

Biblical Creationist predictions on the other hand are reliable. One example is creationists predicted that if God created there would be no need for 'junk DNA'. As research advances this is exactly what researchers are confirming as time goes on.

Saved By Junk DNA: Vital Role In The Evolution Of Human Genome

Astridehere, stick to the topic at hand or get out. Specifically, answer the poll, post your definition of a theory and your definition of evolution, and then leave it at that. This isn't a thread to duke it out (though I'll happily join you in another thread).

If confirmation of predictions is the basis for demonstrating a theory is factual...

It's not.

 

[Naraoia]

*sigh*
Apparently you need to check the definition of the word as used in a scientific context.

Or just read the thread...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET Theory = an educated guess, based on empirical observation, pending falsification.

Science Works! Scientific Theory Explained - YouTube

Is all science based just on theory?

 

[Buy Bologna]

The fact that things evolve is not theoretical.

The only thing that is theoretical is the origin of life.

The ignition of life. There are many theories on that. From amino acids being in the right condition in primordial soup to intelligent design.

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory.

This.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

They can only afford to put a small number of people in prison. So it should not be to difficult to stay out of that group.

This would be a good time to cite the facts, of exactly how out of whack the US is in this regard. (Something like over 30x more people incarcerated, per capita)

 

[Naraoia]

The fact that things evolve is not theoretical.

No, it isn't, but there is a theoretical framework that can explain and predict why they evolve the way they do. That is the theory of evolution. (It even has equations in it!)

Since evolution encompasses a huge range of things, which only have a few fundamental elements in common, there are also many smaller "sub-theories" and hypotheses about evolution, which explain specific kinds of evolutionary phenomena.

For example, it is a fact that in populations of certain New Zealand freshwater snails, individuals with particular genetic makeups become rarer and more common and rarer again over time. This is straightforward evolution as the Modern Synthesis defines it: a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. It's also a fact that more of these snails reproduce sexually in lakes with more snail-infecting parasitic flatworms. (These snails can either have sex or just clone themselves)

The theory (or hypothesis for those of you even more pedantic than me) that explains these facts and predicts several others is that parasites and snails are in an evolutionary arms race. Parasites benefit from adapting to the most common kind of snail, and snails benefit from producing new varieties that the parasites haven't had the opportunity to adapt to. (You can read more about this particular story here)

 

[Michael]

Simple question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I'm leaving the terms of the poll undefined, so please leave a post with your own definitions of 'evolution' and 'theory', and perhaps a short explanation of your answer.

Danke!

IMO it is a very good empirical theory to explain the wide variety of living organisms on Earth.

 

[Buy Bologna]

No, it isn't, but there is a theoretical framework that can explain and predict why they evolve the way they do. That is the theory of evolution. (It even has equations in it!)

Since evolution encompasses a huge range of things, which only have a few fundamental elements in common, there are also many smaller "sub-theories" and hypotheses about evolution, which explain specific kinds of evolutionary phenomena.

For example, it is a fact that in populations of certain New Zealand freshwater snails, individuals with particular genetic makeups become rarer and more common and rarer again over time. This is straightforward evolution as the Modern Synthesis defines it: a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations. It's also a fact that more of these snails reproduce sexually in lakes with more snail-infecting parasitic flatworms. (These snails can either have sex or just clone themselves)

The theory (or hypothesis for those of you even more pedantic than me) that explains these facts and predicts several others is that parasites and snails are in an evolutionary arms race. Parasites benefit from adapting to the most common kind of snail, and snails benefit from producing new varieties that the parasites haven't had the opportunity to adapt to. (You can read more about this particular story here)

Thanks Naraoia.

Your obviously more educated in this field than me.

But when you say. "theoretical framework that can explain and predict why they evolve the way they do."

The theoretical framework doesn't change the fact that they do evolve. i.e. evolution.

Why does 'Evolution' have mean EVERYTHING as a whole including all the theories?

The theory of evolution is just that. A theory. But it entails the origin of life and other theories. Yes?

I'm just talking about the fact that things evolve. Like the the flu strain. It adapts, gradually over generations. i.e. EVOLVES. hence science has to come up with new flu shots due to this fact of evolution.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Why does 'Evolution' have mean EVERYTHING as a whole including all the theories?

The theory of evolution is just that. A theory. But it entails the origin of life and other theories. Yes?

No. And while I support the idea of acquiring knowledge, it seems reasonable to point out that as long as we don't have any unifying theory of everything, and there remain huge holes in our knowledge, we should be careful not to over-state what we actually do know.

Observing that much would go a long way towards reducing the social polarization over these related issues. (I say that based on interacting with many, many hard-core fundy types)