Science vs. Evolution

[plindboe]

And anyone even vaguely familiar with the scientific method would agree with you that evolution is not a "scientific fact". Just like gravity is not a "scientific fact", nor is the germ theory, or electrical theory or anything else.

There are NO facts in science, only theories. What distinguishes one theory from another is the amount of supporting evidence each has. And the ones that have lots of supporting evidence, and no contrary evidence, like the theory of gravity, theory of evolution, and theory of electricity, tend to be regarded by scientifically illiterate as "facts". They aren't, but for all practical purposes they are, at least until some new theory that better explains the observable evidence comes along.

That's not how I would put it. There are plenty of facts in science. Facts are pretty meaningless without theories though, so science uses theories to explain why the facts are the way they are.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution isn't a fact though, that's the one that's a theory. People often say "evolution" when they actually mean "theory of evolution" hence alot of confusion arises. The central fact of evolution is that allelle frequencies change over time, and this is what's called "evolution". The theory explains why those changes occur using various mechanisms; natural selection, genetic drift etc.

Gravity is also a fact. It's a fact that matter attracts matter. The modern theory of gravity, i.e. Einstein's general theory of relativity, is used by scientists to explain the fact of gravity.

Of course scientists can use the words a bit differently from time to time, so no wonder there's alot of confusion over the words. I think the way I put it is the most common way the words are understood in science.

Peter

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not saying whether evolution is true or not here. But I would just like to mention that certainly in schools (up to age 14 at least..I wouldnt know after that) and on TV, it certainly comes over as being absolute fact in the main

Well, the same is true for the existence of atoms. Have you ever seen an atom? Have your kids been inundated with evidence for atoms? No. But, as a fundamental theory underpinning our understanding of the world, it's important that kids know about it. The same is true for germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. To paraphrase Sagan, we live in a society built and reliant upon science and technology, and almost no one understands science and technology.

 

[tansy]

Well, the same is true for the existence of atoms. Have you ever seen an atom? Have your kids been inundated with evidence for atoms? No. But, as a fundamental theory underpinning our understanding of the world, it's important that kids know about it. The same is true for germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. To paraphrase Sagan, we live in a society built and reliant upon science and technology, and almost no one understands science and technology.

Yes, but I was under the impression that with the right equipment one can actually see atoms.
Yes, and I know the say they've seen evolution working, but so far as I'm aware, they haven't SEEN it working where a creature turns gradually into a completely different creature....and of course, that's unlikely to happen, because according to evolutionists it happens in such tiny stages we'd have to be watching it for thousands upon thousands, if not millions of years.
And btw I'm not necessarilly arguing for or against evolution...personally, I can't prove it to my satisfaction either way.

 

[tanzanos]

Yes, but I was under the impression that with the right equipment one can actually see atoms.
Yes, and I know the say they've seen evolution working, but so far as I'm aware, they haven't SEEN it working where a creature turns gradually into a completely different creature....and of course, that's unlikely to happen, because according to evolutionists it happens in such tiny stages we'd have to be watching it for thousands upon thousands, if not millions of years.
And btw I'm not necessarilly arguing for or against evolution...personally, I can't prove it to my satisfaction either way.

Why should evolution change something into a completely different creature? You seem to misunderstand what evolution is. Evolution is a process and as such it follows certain rules. Whether the resulting change is in leaps or bounds or just small increments depends on the parameters involved. For instance a pomato is something that required the human parameter in order to come into existence. We have managed to create new types of fruit and vegetables through genetic manipulation. This is evolution in hyper drive albeit at the hands of humans. Like I said Evolution is a process; Whether the driving force is gamma rays emanating from a supernova or climate change or a laboratory makes no difference. If evolution was wrong then we could not do genetic engineering. Bacteria and viruses would not mutate. The very fact that DNA is a code and is inherent in all life forms is proof of common ancestry. Change is inevitable whether it is evolution of living things or climate change or anything for that matter for according to the laws of physics; nothing can be static for when a static condition arises then time becomes impossible and hence matter ceases to exist!

 

[Cassiterides]

I did read the replies, however none answered my question. I simply asked for directly observational evidence for evolution in process.

If you think evolution is 'fact', then it should be easy to prove by something we can simply observe.

 

[tansy]

Why should evolution change something into a completely different creature? You seem to misunderstand what evolution is. Evolution is a process and as such it follows certain rules. Whether the resulting change is in leaps or bounds or just small increments depends on the parameters involved. For instance a pomato is something that required the human parameter in order to come into existence. We have managed to create new types of fruit and vegetables through genetic manipulation. This is evolution in hyper drive albeit at the hands of humans. Like I said Evolution is a process; Whether the driving force is gamma rays emanating from a supernova or climate change or a laboratory makes no difference. If evolution was wrong then we could not do genetic engineering. Bacteria and viruses would not mutate. The very fact that DNA is a code and is inherent in all life forms is proof of common ancestry. Change is inevitable whether it is evolution of living things or climate change or anything for that matter for according to the laws of physics; nothing can be static for when a static condition arises then time becomes impossible and hence matter ceases to exist!

OK perhaps I haven't understood evolution properly...I have tried to look into it as best I can (I'm not a scientist)..but frankly I still don't quite get it. Though I do understand and recognise natural selection, also genetic engineering.
Just posted this briefly as I have to go out in a minute...perhaps I should formulate my understandings (or misunderstandings) and ask pertinent questions.

 

[Cassiterides]

Evvolution HAS been observed. If I post you a list of examples, would you even bother to read it?

(re: $10 says drive by poster is never seen again,

Dear Cassiterides,

Thank you so much! A $10 donation has been made in your name to PFLAG Australia. Because of contributions from people like you, we will be able to continue our work supporting young gay and lesbian people and their families. )

evolutionists don't have morals, this is just evidence for that.

 

[Hespera]

Yes, but I was under the impression that with the right equipment one can actually see atoms.
Yes, and I know the say they've seen evolution working, but so far as I'm aware, they haven't SEEN it working where a creature turns gradually into a completely different creature....and of course, that's unlikely to happen, because according to evolutionists it happens in such tiny stages we'd have to be watching it for thousands upon thousands, if not millions of years.
And btw I'm not necessarilly arguing for or against evolution...personally, I can't prove it to my satisfaction either way.

All due respect but you appear to be under a lot of mistaken impressions about science. No you cannot image an atom. We have drawings of ideas of how they might look if it were physically possible to see them, drawings of ideas about how they work.

A creature or plant turning into something (very) different is demonstrated over and over in domestic plants and animals.

The wild ancestor of corn looked like any other wild grass. The miniature poodle once had wild dog / wolf ancestors. Selective pressure resulted in a very different descendant.

Also, with regard to the completely different requirement, one might think that a fish was completely different from a cow, say.

Or a lizard from a bird. But they have far more in common than is readily apparent.

When you learn something about comparative anatomy it turns out that we are all "theme and variation". You can trace the development of your hand from the fin of a fish, little steps lots of little steps over a lot of time.

You are not "complete different" from a fish! A lot, but not completely.

You cant, by the way "prove" evolution, or atomic theory either.

"personally, I can't prove it to my satisfaction either way."

(cant prove any theory)

You CAN prove it to yourself (beyond any reasonable doubt) if you take time to study. Thats up to you if you think its worthwhile.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I did read the replies, however none answered my question. I simply asked for directly observational evidence for evolution in process.

If you think evolution is 'fact', then it should be easy to prove by something we can simply observe.

Speciation is a phenomenon that occurs because of evolution. In other words, speciation constitutes a direct observation of evolution.
So, have we seen speciation? Why, yes, yes we have.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, but I was under the impression that with the right equipment one can actually see atoms.

You mean this?

How do you know that's really atoms, and not magic gnomes with pointy hats on?

Yes, and I know the say they've seen evolution working, but so far as I'm aware, they haven't SEEN it working where a creature turns gradually into a completely different creature....and of course, that's unlikely to happen, because according to evolutionists it happens in such tiny stages we'd have to be watching it for thousands upon thousands, if not millions of years.
And btw I'm not necessarilly arguing for or against evolution...personally, I can't prove it to my satisfaction either way.

We've seen it happen, because it doesn't take billions of years. We've seen entirely new species form exactly as evolution predicts, naturally in the wild, accidentally in human habitats, and artificially in the wild. However, a a species like a bacterium giving rise to descendants like moles, does take millions of years. No one has seen it happen, because no one has lived for billions of years. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, and the evidence is there that it did happen. That's why we believe it.

So you've got 'evolution' as the scientist understands it (any change in the frequency of inheritable traits in a population), and 'evolution' as the layman understands it (large, morphological change as one species becomes physically distinct from its ancestor species).

As scientists understand the term, we've literally seen evolution happen.

 

[Hespera]

evolutionists don't have morals, this is just evidence for that.

i hope this is some sort of joke because otherwise its a really rancid false and bigoted thing to say, and certainly doesnt speak well for christian 'values".

 

[Cassiterides]

Speciation is a phenomenon that occurs because of evolution. In other words, speciation constitutes a direct observation of evolution.
So, have we seen speciation? Why, yes, yes we have.

However many scientists have different views on the ''species'', what they are, their classification, how many there are etc. Aristotle listed only about 500 kinds of animals; Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece listed only a few hundred different plants. Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions. What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

Here are a few examples:

Foxes

The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species, although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva).

Corn

One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn) while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one 'species'.

Platypus

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts, p. 135.

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

 

[Cassiterides]

i hope this is some sort of joke because otherwise its a really rancid false and bigoted thing to say, and certainly doesnt speak well for christian 'values".

This is 'Christianforums', the vast majority of Christians are in agreement homosexuality is a sin as the scripture quite clearly teaches.

The person spamming gay rights activism in this thread clearly is in such denial of their sin they feel the need to promote their sexual immorality with an aim of acceptance or approval. That won't work on me though, since homosexuality is not moral and is against the laws of the Bible.

 

[tanzanos]

However many scientists have different views on the ''species'', what they are, their classification, how many there are etc. Aristotle listed only about 500 kinds of animals; Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece listed only a few hundred different plants. Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions. What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

Here are a few examples:

Foxes

The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species, although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva).

Corn

One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn) while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one 'species'.

Platypus

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts, p. 135.

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

You really have absolutely no idea what the ToE is all about do you

 

[Hespera]

This is 'Christianforums', the vast majority of Christians are in agreement homosexuality is a sin as the scripture quite clearly teaches.

The person spamming gay rights activism in this thread clearly is in such denial of their sin they feel the need to promote their sexual immorality with an aim of acceptance or approval. That won't work on me though, since homosexuality is not moral and is against the laws of the Bible.

You said that evolutionists don't have morals, this is just evidence for that.

Which if false and bigoted statement. I see you are defending it, which i will take as evidence that to a theocreologist, an ad hom is good logic, that bigotry is fine, and that "christian" morality is a hollow sham.

I guess we could go on and look at Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Jones and say they are evidence that no Christian is anything but hypocritical and immoral. Fair? You must think it is, going by your earlier presentation about "evolutionists".

 

[Hespera]

You really have absolutely no idea what the ToE is all about do you

The only way they ever have had to argue against it is to make up nonsense. Then either set it up and knock it down! (the mighty straw man)
Or else make up nonsense and state it to be true. (false witness)

Admirable demos of intellectual and, yes Christian honesty.

 

[Cassiterides]

Which if false and bigoted statement.

In Darwin's own words:

‘‘But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?’’​

(In this letter in 1881, Darwin noted on the moral implications of his theory, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin(1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. I, p. 285.)​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

However many scientists have different views on the ''species'', what they are, their classification, how many there are etc. Aristotle listed only about 500 kinds of animals; Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece listed only a few hundred different plants. Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions. What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

The species problem only exists when a species or several closely related species is/are in the middle of speciation (e.g., dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys), and asexual species (e.g., bacteria, which throw the additional spanner of horizontal gene transfer).

Nonetheless, 'species' is a well defined concept within science, the above exceptions notwithstanding. Moreover, this does not impact the veracity of evolution one bit: it's simply a semantic quibble.

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

• (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
• In biology, a species is: * a taxonomic rank (the basic rank of biological classification) or * a unit at that rank (in which case the plural is "species". This is sometimes abbreviated: "spec." or "sp." singular, or "spp." plural).
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
• A group of plants or animals having similar appearance; A rank in the classification of organisms, below genus and above subspecies; a taxon at ...
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Species
• A group of organisms which resemble each other and can interbreed with each other.
  www.geckoweb.org/glossary
• A group of organisms distinct from all other groups of organisms that are capable of reproduction and producing fertile offspring. This is the basic unit of plant and animal classification.
  boatingsailing.suite101.com/article.cfm/glossary_of_invasive_species_terms
• A group of animals or plants having common characteristics and able to breed together to produce fertile (capable of reproducing) offspring, so that they maintain their 'separateness' from other groups. ...
  www.fish.wa.gov.au/glossary/GlossaryPage09.php
• the fundamental biological classification, comprising a subdivision of a genus and consisting of a number of plants or animals all of which have a high degree of similarity. ...
  www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~kpt/terraquest/galapagos/education/reference/glossary.html
• Basic category of biological classification, characterised by individuals which can breed together.
  www.thelearningworm.com/glossary.php
• An important classificatory category, which can be variously defined by the biological species concept, cladistic species concept, ecological species concept, phenetic species concept, and recognition species concept. ...
  www.chrysis.net/chrysis/resources/glossary_bio.htm
• A kind of plant that is distinct from other plants.
  www.orchids.com/support/supportGlossary.html

Sorry, you were saying there's no universal definition? A species is a group of organisms who can breed to produce fertile offspring. This is the universal definition you will get from any biologist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is 'Christianforums', the vast majority of Christians are in agreement homosexuality is a sin as the scripture quite clearly teaches.

Actually, most don't. It's only in heavily religious countries that this is the case. In Europe, for instance, most don't see homosexuality as any more immoral than heterosexuality. But that's besides the point.

 

[Hespera]

However many scientists have different views on the ''species'', what they are, their classification, how many there are etc. Aristotle listed only about 500 kinds of animals; Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece listed only a few hundred different plants. Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions. What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

Here are a few examples:

Foxes

The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species, although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva).

Corn

One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn) while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one 'species'.

Platypus

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts, p. 135.

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

No two historians will be in agreement about exactly what happened in World War two. And there are GAPS in the record! Mysteries that will never be solved.

History is not evidence for WW2.

The "theologists" cant agree about how to interpret or translate the 'bible'

Some parts used to be included but were later determined by a 'committee" that they were actually false! St. Christopher used to be real, and they prayed to him. Now he has gone poof! He never existed!

of btw ye who thinks he can disprove evolution with word tricks.

this here "so to claim 'speciation' is proove (SIC) of evolution"

is such a silly and shallow straw man that one would almost think even a theocreologist would be embarrassed to use it.

So scientist would make such a claim.
No theory can be proven.

Amazing how much falsehood can be worked into a few words. Christian morality in action tho. False witness schmaditmus. All is fair when defending da lord, i guess.

Here is a definition, in case you know as little of English and logic as you do of science.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.