Let's review the facts of evolutionary theory.

[[serious]]

I think evolution is theology of aliens and something like that Predator character. And no, those neanderthal skulls and ape fangs do not match with my skull.

Everyone agrees that there are human skulls and non human skulls. The question is not whether there is a difference in human vs nonhuman skulls, but whether there is a clear line of demarcation seperating the human skulls from those of other apes.

First aproximation: Which of the following are human skulls:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

EDIT: linked image instead of putting it in line. It was breaking the frame

 

[CabVet]

I asked the same thing of these guys as to what would happen to all that other evidence about our moon, should one of the six theories be found to be the correct one, and it was like inviting these guys to play verbal Twister.

No AV, I answered the moon question very clearly to you. When one of the hypotheses of the formation of the moon gets more evidence the others will lose support. When continental drift was first proposed very few people accepted it because the only evidence supporting it was the fit between the continents, mainly between South America and Africa. With time, evidence to support it piled up and now continental drift is widely accepted.

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV, I answered the moon question very clearly to you.

No, you didn't.

When one of the hypotheses of the formation of the moon gets more evidence the others will lose support.

That's not what I asked.

Should one be shown to be the correct one, what happens to the evidence that supported the other five?

Suppose #6 (Two Moon Theory) is found to the the right one; what happens to this moon that supposedly tried to pass us and was captured in our gravitational field? what happens to this comet that hit us and ejected mass into orbit that accreted into our moon? what happens to the excess matter that formed our moon at the same time our earth was formed?

Each theory has its own locker of evidence, and I would like to know what happens to those evidence lockers, once one theory is shown to be correct?

When continental drift ...

Oh, for pity's sake -- here we go.

... was first proposed very few people accepted it because the only evidence supporting it was the fit between the continents, mainly between South America and Africa.

That's neat.

Did continental drift vie with 5 other theories, each with its own locker of evidence to support it?

With time, evidence to support it piled up and now continental drift is widely accepted.

That's neat.

 

[CabVet]

No, you didn't.

That's not what I asked.

Should one be shown to be the correct one, what happens to the evidence that supported the other five?

Suppose #6 (Two Moon Theory) is found to the the right one; what happens to this moon that supposedly tried to pass us and was captured in our gravitational field? what happens to this comet that hit us and ejected mass into orbit that accreted into our moon? what happens to the excess matter that formed our moon at the same time our earth was formed?

Each theory has its own locker of evidence, and I would like to know what happens to those evidence lockers, once one theory is shown to be correct?

Oh, for pity's sake -- here we go.

That's neat.

Did continental drift vie with 5 other theories, each with its own locker of evidence to support it?

That's neat.

That's neat. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, they are not theories. They are hypotheses. Evidence is not strong to support any of them, that's why there six and that's why we need more (and better) evidence to come to a better conclusion. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characteristics" was a hypothesis proposed to explain evolution and it was shown to be wrong and eventually dismissed.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's neat. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, they are not theories. They are hypotheses.

And yet again, from nasa.gov:

Any theory which explains the existence of the Moon must naturally explain the following facts:

SOURCE

If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough ... er ... skip that.

 

[CabVet]

And yet again, from nasa.gov:


SOURCE

If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough ... er ... skip that.

I can find 10 religious websites that say the Bible is wrong.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Hello,

If you're a serious evolutionist, explain the proven facts of evolutionary theory I will explain my OEC points.

Simply put, evolution works!

You can read Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" to find out how it works.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can find 10 religious websites that say the Bible is wrong.

Oh.

 

[Jazer]

I can find 10 religious websites that say the Bible is wrong.

Then show us where the Bible is "wrong". What you can do is show websites where they have a wrong interpretation or wrong understaning of the Bible. Look at all the people that believe evolution is right and yet we know it is wrong. To know right from wrong you must have the mind of Christ and understand or know the Divine Thoughts of God.

16For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. cor 4

 

[Nabobalis]

And yet again, from nasa.gov:


SOURCE

If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough ... er ... skip that.

StarChild Question of the Month for October 2001

It was written for children, so they simplified it to just theories in order not to confuse them.

 

[CabVet]

Then show us where the Bible is "wrong". What you can do is show websites where they have a wrong interpretation or wrong understaning of the Bible. Look at all the people that believe evolution is right and yet we know it is wrong. To know right from wrong you must have the mind of Christ and understand or know the Divine Thoughts of God.

16For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. cor 4

Way to bring the discussion completely off-topic. The reason why I posted what I did was because AV found a website with an error and keeps using it as "proof" that he is right. My point is, there are many erroneous websites. That is all.

By the way, citing the Bible does not prove the Bible to be right. All religious books out there claim to be the right one.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was written for children, so they simplified it to just theories in order not to confuse them.

Mind if I do the same, then?

I mean -- the point is the same, right?

Whether it is called a theory or an hypothesis, does that change where these lockers of evidence go?

And for the record, there are no theories as to how we got our moon? is that you guys' point?

 

[mathetes123]

Way to bring the discussion completely off-topic. The reason why I posted what I did was because AV found a website with an error and keeps using it as "proof" that he is right. My point is, there are many erroneous websites. That is all.

By the way, citing the Bible does not prove the Bible to be right. All religious books out there claim to be the right one.

All religious books are not the Bible.

The Bible validates itself through fulfilled prophecy.

 

[CabVet]

Mind if I do the same, then?

I mean -- the point is the same, right?

Whether it is called a theory or an hypothesis, does that change where these lockers of evidence go?

And for the record, there are no theories as to how we got our moon? is that you guys' point?

Yes, that is our point. These are not theories, only hypotheses. Hypotheses must be tested and supported with evidence before they can be called theories. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, that is all. Evidence is evidence and does not change. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory it has to be supported by several lines of evidence.

Let's go back to continental drift for a second. Initially, it was almost entirely based on the fact that the continents fit together. While it was based only on that, it remained a hypothesis, as there are other possible ways of getting continents that fit together. But when other evidence came up supporting it (mineral formations matching among continents, magnetic anomalies in sea floor rocks, the discovery of mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones), it became accepted and is now a theory.

Other hypotheses that explained the fit between continents (like the expanding earth hypothesis) had no additional support and were dismissed.

The initial observation that generated those hypotheses (the fact that continents fit together like puzzle pieces) remains the same.

 

[Nabobalis]

Mind if I do the same, then?

I mean -- the point is the same, right?

Whether it is called a theory or an hypothesis, does that change where these lockers of evidence go?

And for the record, there are no theories as to how we got our moon? is that you guys' point?

CabVet said more than I could of hoped.

 

[CabVet]

All religious books are not the Bible.

The Bible validates itself through fulfilled prophecy.

One could say the same about the writings of Nostradamus.

Oh, and by the way, if fulfilled prophecies validate religious books, you should check the fulfilled prophecies of the Quran also.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that is our point. These are not theories, only hypotheses. Hypotheses must be tested and supported with evidence before they can be called theories. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, that is all. Evidence is evidence and does not change. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory it has to be supported by several lines of evidence.

Let's go back to continental drift for a second. Initially, it was almost entirely based on the fact that the continents fit together. While it was based only on that, it remained a hypothesis, as there are other possible ways of getting continents that fit together. But when other evidence came up supporting it (mineral formations matching among continents, magnetic anomalies in sea floor rocks, the discovery of mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones), it became accepted and is now a theory.

Other hypotheses that explained the fit between continents (like the expanding earth hypothesis) had no additional support and were dismissed.

The initial observation that generated those hypotheses (the fact that continents fit together like puzzle pieces) remains the same.

1. Does an hypothesis have to be supported by evidence?

2. I take it a theory does have to be supported by evidence, then?

 

[AV1611VET]

CabVet said more than I could of hoped.

Yes -- his answer actually makes sense.

 

[CabVet]

1. Does an hypothesis have to be supported by evidence?

2. I take it a theory does have to be supported by evidence, then?

1. Hypothesis have to make logical sense or they will be immediately dismissed, but they do not necessarily have to be supported by evidence. Another good definition for it is "a statement that attempts to state what might be true in a particular situation".

2. Theory has to be supported by several different lines of evidence. However, how good a piece of evidence is partly depends on how the evidence was obtained: Was a reliable method used? How good are the tools that were used to gather or measure the evidence? Can the data be replicated in another experiment? Is the evidence an acknowledged fact or statistic? Is it a reliable memory or observation? Might some reasonable people disagree with the evidence?

So, in short, theories are supported by evidence, but they are only as good as the evidence that support them. One single piece of evidence can completely change a theory if this new evidence is better than the previous evidence, and if the previous evidence does not contradict the new theory.

 

[CabVet]

Let me give you some examples, while evolution is a theory, the following are hypotheses and are totally subject to change either because they are supported by weak evidence or because there are gaps in our knowledge yet to be filled that might change them:

1. Horses evolved from a small ancestor to the large animals we see today.

2. New species are formed by geographical separation and natural selection is not strong enough to cause populations to become reproductively isolated.

3. Mutations are random and produce genetic variation.

4. Most mutations are nearly neutral.

Note that, even though these are all hypotheses, falsifying all of them would not weaken the theory of evolution. All of these hypotheses deal with how organisms evolve, not if they evolve.