The tip of the ice berg

[Shemjaza]

I'm familiar with Wallace. There were also other theories that didn't gain as much support Alternatives to Darwinian evolution - Wikipedia

So you can see that they all had the evidence for evolution there in front of them... it just so happened that upon closer inspection it was Darwin's explanation that lines up with the details.

The discovery of the mechanics of inheritance and the origin of variation only tweaked the theory.


(You should probably ignore the hyperbole from popular science publications with their titles of "Does This New Discovery Change Everything!?!?", if they wrote about tools they way they wrote about science it would be: "Some Builders Say This Orange Handle Will Change The Hammer For Ever!")

 

[BPPLEE]

That evolution happens is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens.

I understand what you are saying and you know way more about this than I do but when we common folks who are not scientists or professors talk about evolution we usually mean molecules to man evolution. I don't think it's a proven fact that men and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor or that abiogenesis is a proven fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I understand what you are saying and you know way more about this than I do but when we common folks who are not scientists or professors talk about evolution we usually mean molecules to man evolution. I don't think it's a proven fact that men and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor or that abiogenesis is a proven fact.

I think you seem to be all over the place with your understanding of evolution.

It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. There is genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence for that.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and is also not a facet of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis could be completely shown to be incorrect, but evolution would still be a valid theory.

 

[BPPLEE]

So you can see that they all had the evidence for evolution there in front of them... it just so happened that upon closer inspection it was Darwin's explanation that lines up with the details.

The discovery of the mechanics of inheritance and the origin of variation only tweaked the theory.


(You should probably ignore the hyperbole from popular science publications with their titles of "Does This New Discovery Change Everything!?!?", if they wrote about tools they way they wrote about science it would be: "Some Builders Say This Orange Handle Will Change The Hammer For Ever!")

The article says there were alternative theories not this changes everything but I know the kind of articles you are talking about

 

[ottawak]

I understand what you are saying and you know way more about this than I do but when we common folks who are not scientists or professors talk about evolution we usually mean molecules to man evolution.

Perhaps because that's the concept you don't like. But it involves two different fields of study in biology and involves two different biochemical processes.

I don't think it's a proven fact that men and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor...

No, it's not a proven fact. Science doesn't do "proven facts." The theory of a common ancestor is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.

or that abiogenesis is a proven fact.

It's not. At this point it's not even a theory, just a bundle of hypotheses.

 

[Shemjaza]

I understand what you are saying and you know way more about this than I do but when we common folks who are not scientists or professors talk about evolution we usually mean molecules to man evolution. I don't think it's a proven fact that men and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor or that abiogenesis is a proven fact.

You are lumping together a bunch of things with very, very different levels of evidence.

Molecules to man/Abiogenesis is absolutely a mystery. We don't know for sure how it could have happened... and given the lack of real evidence from the era, we probably can't know with any real certainty.

Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is another matter... we have the very clear genetic evidence comparing chimps, multiple kinds of "human" and other living ape species.

We also have a whole pile fossils of extinct hominid species that fill in the historical gaps as far as structure is concerned.

 

[BPPLEE]

You are lumping together a bunch of things with very, very different levels of evidence.

Molecules to man/Abiogenesis is absolutely a mystery. We don't know for sure how it could have happened... and given the lack of real evidence from the era, we probably can't know with any real certainty.

Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is another matter... we have the very clear genetic evidence comparing chimps, multiple kinds of "human" and other living ape species.

We also have a whole pile fossils of extinct hominid species that fill in the historical gaps as far as structure is concerned.

I agree with Ottawaks reply

 

[BPPLEE]

I think you seem to be all over the place with your understanding of evolution.

It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. There is genetic evidence as well as fossil evidence for that.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and is also not a facet of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis could be completely shown to be incorrect, but evolution would still be a valid theory.

It's not a fact

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not a fact

Yeah, it kind of is.

How is it not a fact?

 

[ottawak]

It's not a fact

Show us. What happened instead? Why doesn't the evidence show us?

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not a fact

Demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt... things can be unknown from an absolute standpoint, but still clearly demonstrated.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I understand what you are saying and you know way more about this than I do

That can be merely a temporary situation... but you have to want it to be.

but when we common folks who are not scientists or professors

If you dismiss yourself as "common folk," then that's all you'll ever be.

The purpose of education -- any education -- is to give you the tools to become something more.

talk about evolution we usually mean molecules to man evolution.

Which is what, besides a creationist catchphrase?

I don't think it's a proven fact that men and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor

Well now, you see, you're talking about UCA, or "Universal Common Ancestry," more commonly known as the theory of common descent, which is another one of Darwin's contributions to evolution.

It's quite simple, actually -- Darwin's theory was that adaptations to the environment can cause one species to split into 2 or more species... assuming that is so (and of course, Darwin did), then working backwards, it would stand to reason that the vast number of species we see today originally came from a far smaller number... and "one" is indeed a far smaller number.

Now, you can choose to accept this part of the theory or reject it, but it's very important for you to understand something very crucial about your choice -- it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

Because nobody is going to care about your opinion unless you do something to force them to care. Since, by your own admission, you don't know much about it, that hardly puts you in an informed position to determine whether or not anyone else should accept it, study it in a classroom, or print it in a textbook. You're not an expert or even a scholar on the topic, so your opinion on it, quite frankly, is worth two things -- diddly, and squat.

...unless you aspire for a position of political or social power, where knowledge of a subject isn't necessary for you to compel others to act in accordance with your opinion. Unfortunately, far too many people -- many of whom know as little if not less about evolution than you do -- have opted to do precisely that.

or that abiogenesis is a proven fact.

Abiogenesis is a proven fact -- "proven" insofar as we know for a fact (because we proved it) that it can happen... what's unproven is whether or not it did happen a few billion years ago.

 

[BPPLEE]

Show us. What happened instead? Why doesn't the evidence show us?

By your own definition it's not a proven fact. I'm not going to argue with you about what may have happened.

 

[TLK Valentine]

By your own definition it's not a proven fact. I'm not going to argue with you about what may have happened.

Then why are you here?

 

[BPPLEE]

That can be merely a temporary situation... but you have to want it to be.



If you dismiss yourself as "common folk," then that's all you'll ever be.

The purpose of education -- any education -- is to give you the tools to become something more.



Which is what, besides a creationist catchphrase?



Well now, you see, you're talking about UCA, or "Universal Common Ancestry," more commonly known as the theory of common descent, which is another one of Darwin's contributions to evolution.

It's quite simple, actually -- Darwin's theory was that adaptations to the environment can cause one species to split into 2 or more species... assuming that is so (and of course, Darwin did), then working backwards, it would stand to reason that the vast number of species we see today originally came from a far smaller number... and "one" is indeed a far smaller number.

Now, you can choose to accept this part of the theory or reject it, but it's very important for you to understand something very crucial about your choice -- it doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

Because nobody is going to care about your opinion unless you do something to force them to care. Since, by your own admission, you don't know much about it, that hardly puts you in an informed position to determine whether or not anyone else should accept it, study it in a classroom, or print it in a textbook. You're not an expert or even a scholar on the topic, so your opinion on it, quite frankly, is worth two things -- diddly, and squat.

...unless you aspire for a position of political or social power, where knowledge of a subject isn't necessary for you to compel others to act in accordance with your opinion. Unfortunately, far too many people -- many of whom know as little if not less about evolution than you do -- have opted to do precisely that.




Abiogenesis is a proven fact -- "proven" insofar as we know for a fact (because we proved it) that it can happen... what's unproven is whether or not it did happen a few billion years ago.

I don't intend to be a politician so I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my opinion. I appreciate your expertise on the subject and thanks for the explanation. I don't claim that my opinion is worth anymore than anyone else's you know what they say about opinions

 

[BPPLEE]

Then why are you here?

When I found it I assumed it was a Christian forum.

 

[ottawak]

When I found it I assumed it was a Christian forum.

It is a Christian forum. The creation/evolution question is one with Christians on both sides.

 

[BPPLEE]

It is a Christian forum. The creation/evolution question is one with Christians on both sides.

I see that

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't intend to be a politician so I'm not trying to force anyone to accept my opinion.

I've heard that before.

Besides, you don't need to be a politician to have power to abuse... you could be a teacher... a pastor... a parent...

I appreciate your expertise on the subject and thanks for the explanation. I don't claim that my opinion is worth anymore than anyone else's you know what they say about opinions

Indeed -- everyone has them, but it's considered poor form to wave them around in public and expect people to be impressed.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No one with any understanding of science at all, whatever side of the issue he is on, believes that evidence "proves" a scientific theory. Adaptation demonstrates a mechanism to the observer which is theoretically competent to produce changes on the macro-scale and in a manner which is consistent with fossil and genetic evidence. That doesn't mean that it is "proven." You don't get that with a scientific theory. The best you can hope for in science is an explanation which seems to describe the phenomenon adequately and has not yet been contradicted by empirical evidence.

A fine sounding response. I've yet to have a discussion with an evolutionist who does not believe that evolution has been proven. Obviously none of them were scientists. I wish I had a record of those conversations.

I referred some to James Tour as a example of a scientist who rejects evolution. One response at least was to the effect that he's just a Bible bashing creationist. Professor Tour used to have a blog. It became such a focus for vitriol and hate that he gave it up.