Is evolution a theory?

[Trogool]

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

^^This.

 

[Buy Bologna]

I just can't get over the fact that I'm the only one that voted is wasn't a theory.

LOL.


I have much to learn.

 

[Ave Maria]

Evolution is indeed a theory but its a fairly well established and well accepted theory. I personally believe in the theory of evolution. However, I do believe that God is the one who started everything and guided it.

 

[Buy Bologna]

Evolution is indeed a theory but its a fairly well established and well accepted theory. I personally believe in the theory of evolution. However, I do believe that God is the one who started everything and guided it.

It's not a theory that things evolve.

The theory of evolution is a theory.

 

[Elendur]

I just can't get over the fact that I'm the only one that voted is wasn't a theory.

LOL.


I have much to learn.

Observed evolution is a fact and I wasn't certain the poll was referring to ToE.

Edit: Ok, apparently I chose to vote, funny how the memory tricks you sometimes.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Observed evolution is a fact

Sure, but finches are still finches, and bacterium are still bacterium. (Thus the coining of the term macro vs micro)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sure, but finches are still finches, and bacterium are still bacterium. (Thus the coining of the term macro vs micro)

Would make for an interesting thread!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7459515/
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Lets put this puppy to sleep once and for all... Microevolution is small scale changes in a population. Macroevolution is multiple instances of microevolution back-to-back. There is ASOLUTELY NO difference genetically between the two. The ONLY difference is the time period over which said changes take place. No scientist has EVER said a dinosaur laid an egg which hatched into a bird so Kirk Cameroon can put away his crocoduck poster. He looks like an idiot, already.

Of all the idiotic creationist pseudo-logic arguments this is one of the most annoying because it is so far from what science actually teaches and thus easily refuted. Any questions?

 

[Elendur]

Sure, but finches are still finches, and bacterium are still bacterium. (Thus the coining of the term macro vs micro)

I'm... not certain why you would write that in answer to my post...

Anyways;
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
(If you're interested in learning something)

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I'm... not certain why you would write that in answer to my post...

Anyways;
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
(If you're interested in learning something)

Interesting that you can't connect the dots, yet you presume your link would contain things I don't know. Anyway, it's rather convenient for the scientific definition of macroevolution to include speciation, which is not contested. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there, but I'm not going to be bothered to accurately label it as such. Setting the stage to talk past each other will have to suffice)

 

[ProScribe]

Voted yes.

I think they demonstrate how to interpret the evidence for evolutionary theory in the science dept.

 

[Elendur]

Interesting that you can't connect the dots, yet you presume your link would contain things I don't know. Anyway, it's rather convenient for the scientific definition of macroevolution to include speciation, which is not contested. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there, but I'm not going to be bothered to accurately label it as such. Setting the stage to talk past each other will have to suffice)

Sure, but I still don't get why you wrote that.

Could you explain it for me? I'm reading those two replies over and over again, I just don't see the connection. (I don't even come close to the subjects of micro or macro evolution)

 

[selfinflikted]

There's the theory of evolution, and there's the fact of evolution.

Evolution is observable through changes in microbes, plant cultivation and animal breeding; this would be the fact of evolution.

The theory of evolution would be a logical conclusion based on observable facts; for example, combine the fact of evolution, with archeological findings, the nested heirarchy of genetics (and so on so forth with oceans of other facts), and you have the theory of evolution.

Ditto to this.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't arbitrarily define such things! A scientific theory is clearly defined and you cannot just up and make up another definition legitimizing crap that has no real basis! In the scientific world a theory is a hypothesis (again, strict definitions apply) which has been subjected to rigorous testing and found to consistently be an accurate and good description of reality.

This is close, but not quite accurate. A theory is an overarching explanation for a broad set of facts. A theory is used to construct hypotheses which are then tested. The viability of a theory is determined by its ability to produce a wide array of independent yet related hypotheses that pass experimental testing.

The theory of evolution fits this definition quite nicely. It is an overarching theory that explains a wide set of data. At the same time, we can use the theory to construct very specific and testable hypotheses such as the influence of neutral drift in a given lineage.

So, no WC. The creationists cannot 'have their own valid theory'. It does not work like that.

Creationists did have their own theory, and it was falsified by observations in the early 1800's.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Sure, but I still don't get why you wrote that.

Could you explain it for me? I'm reading those two replies over and over again, I just don't see the connection. (I don't even come close to the subjects of micro or macro evolution)

Ok. My (very short) post you're commenting on, snipped out part of your post, only quoting you saying "evolution is a fact." Then later, you linked something showing that in fact, the scientific community does define speciatation to be evolution at the macro level. Knowing this, I pointed out that no one has any problem with one type of bacteria evolving into another, nor one type of finch evolving into another; with many more examples at hand of what those who dispute ToE would consider to be "micro-evolution."

The disagreement doesn't arise until you take in the bigger concept, of primordial ooze into modern man. So the extent of evolution that we have observed and can state is factual, is really quite limited. (And all the nested hierarchies speak to the glory of God at least as well as they support ToE)

 

[selfinflikted]

(And all the nested hierarchies speak to the glory of God at least as well as they support ToE)

"As well?" How so?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. My (very short) post you're commenting on, snipped out part of your post, only quoting you saying "evolution is a fact." Then later, you linked something showing that in fact, the scientific community does define speciatation to be evolution at the macro level. Knowing this, I pointed out that no one has any problem with one type of bacteria evolving into another, nor one type of finch evolving into another;

However, they do have a problem with one primate turning into another primate when those primates happen to be basal apes and modern humans.

The disagreement doesn't arise until you take in the bigger concept, of primordial ooze into modern man.

That is microevolution as well because it is eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes.

 

[Elendur]

Ok. My (very short) post you're commenting on, snipped out part of your post, only quoting you saying "evolution is a fact." Then later, you linked something showing that in fact, the scientific community does define speciatation to be evolution at the macro level. Knowing this, I pointed out that no one has any problem with one type of bacteria evolving into another, nor one type of finch evolving into another; with many more examples at hand of what those who dispute ToE would consider to be "micro-evolution."

The disagreement doesn't arise until you take in the bigger concept, of primordial ooze into modern man. So the extent of evolution that we have observed and can state is factual, is really quite limited. (And all the nested hierarchies speak to the glory of God at least as well as they support ToE)

Ah, so you weren't responding to my post specifically. In my experience when someone writes "Sure, but..."they have something related to talk about.
You could have just written a standalone post.

Also, isn't the primordial ooze from abiogenesis?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Also, isn't the primordial ooze from abiogenesis?

Well if said ooze contains some form of life, however primitive, then it is properly in the context of evolution.

 

[Naraoia]

Thanks Naraoia.

Your obviously more educated in this field than me.

I have a degree in it, I'd better be educated.

Incidentally, that means if I confidently talk nonsense about evolution, you have every right to descend on me with all the wrath of the deceived

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.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

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

With regards to the poll, the OP left the question intentionally vague

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.

Evolutionary theory has a lot to explain because evolution is a very complex phenomenon. Its core is simple. There are things that copy themselves imperfectly, yet faithfully enough to avoid just dying out immediately. That alone leads to evolution. Often, these self-replicating things also compete for limited resources, and then you have evolution by natural selection.

That's the basis of evolution in a nutshell. However, the real world is a complex environment, selection can take all kinds of forms, including other evolutionary units. So you get things like sexual selection and sexual conflict, kin selection, selfish genetic elements, cryptic genetic variation and so on, all of which have their own rules, and interact with each other, and create a gigantic complex mess that no simple theory can make complete sense of. And then we haven't even touched on issues of developmental evolution/developmental constraint, the physical properties of organisms and their building blocks that might act as constraints, or environmental catastrophes that change the rules of "being the fittest" altogether.

The theory of evolution is just that. A theory.

What do you mean by "theory" here?

But it entails the origin of life and other theories. Yes?

No. Or rather, it depends. If "life" is defined as more than a simple replicating molecule, then yes, evolution is extremely important for understanding the origin of life. On the other hand, if any replicator is "life", then evolution by definition had no part in its origin - the things replicators came from were not replicators, and therefore could not evolve in the biological sense of the word.

Sure, but finches are still finches, and bacterium are still bacterium. (Thus the coining of the term macro vs micro)

Two questions:

(1) Do you have any idea how much diversity the term "bacterium" encompasses? (Clue: diversity of shape is not the only kind, and it's kinda harder to achieve with single small cells. But even for shape: have some Anabaena and Streptomyces if you thought bacteria were all boring little cudgels of goo like E. coli.)

(2) Hypothetically, what would you consider an example of a finch, a bacterium, or other organism of your choice, becoming a non-finch/bacterium/organism or your choice?

Interesting that you can't connect the dots, yet you presume your link would contain things I don't know. Anyway, it's rather convenient for the scientific definition of macroevolution to include speciation, which is not contested. (I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there, but I'm not going to be bothered to accurately label it as such. Setting the stage to talk past each other will have to suffice)

I'm willing to bet the architects of the Modern Synthesis didn't give a fig what creationist did or did not contest when they defined macroevolution as speciation and above.

Not that I like that definition any more, but I digress.

In any case, I think we can add a question three to my two above.

(3) How would you define macroevolution?

 

[sfs]

However, they do have a problem with one primate turning into another primate when those primates happen to be basal apes and modern humans.

Yeah, that's always the big one. Goo turning into monkeys doesn't bother too many people, but monkeys(*) turning into humans, well, that's got to be physically impossible.

(*) Sort of, more or less.