What makes Evolution a theory?

[The Barbarian]

Why not just accept it God's way?

Do you often say your opinion is "God's way"?

I do it a little differently. I check what God says, and go with that. Worth a try? You might find it easier to sleep at night, too.

 

[All Becomes New]

Why not just accept it God's way?

I do it a little differently. I check what God says, and go with that. Worth a try? You might find it easier to sleep at night, too.

Let me know when you grow up.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me know when you grow up.

The Bible is not a science textbook. The solution is simple and it's right in front of you.

When you read about the earth resting on pillars, you don't engage in debates with heliocentrists do you?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me know when you grow up.

There's really nothing that can happen to one here, that can't get worse by one getting upset and verbally abusive.

 

[AaronClaricus]

If you mean we have watched a species change from one to another, you are wrong. Else, prove it.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Quite a few articles on cryptic speciation. Several organisms can spontaneously split into two species by mutation.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts

"A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."

Okay, I see now that science has a totally different view of the word theory. I don't argue against that anymore; thank you for clarifying the differences. I haven't changed my mind on evolution though. I still don't believe that Homo sapiens started out as one celled protozoans or protocells and through billions of years of "evolution" became man. Too many unproven links with the first being the creation of a living "thing" from non-living matter.

I think in the future, if you want the public to understand something that science takes for granted, the explanations have to be brought down to the common man's level not the other way around.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Could you present one or more of their arguments and evidence here? The videos blather around, but don't really make much sense to me.

I'll look around for one that is short and to the point .

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll look around for one that is short and to the point

Just pull out whatever you consider the best argument and present it here. On the other hand, if you don't understand it well enough to present it, you might consider why you think it's a good argument. Just do your best and we'll look at it. This isn't a video reviewing site.

 

[The Barbarian]

Too many unproven links with the first being the creation of a living "thing" from non-living matter.

You don't think God created the first living things? That's what Darwin thought. But since evolution isn't about the origin of life, it doesn't matter. No matter how it started, evolution would still work the same way we see it working now.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think in the future, if you want the public to understand something that science takes for granted, the explanations have to be brought down to the common man's level not the other way around.

This is something that is normally taught in science classes in public schools. Scientific method, hypotheses, theories, laws. Not exactly rocket science. A person with at least a middle-school education should know these things.

 

[All Becomes New]

You don't think God created the first living things? That's what Darwin thought. But since evolution isn't about the origin of life, it doesn't matter. No matter how it started, evolution would still work the same way we see it working now.

Your paragon...

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He further stated that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

 

[Hvizsgyak]

This is something that is normally taught in science classes in public schools. Scientific method, hypotheses, theories, laws. Not exactly rocket science. A person with at least a middle-school education should know these things.

I didn't do well when it came to the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws. In my eyes, it was nonsense. I only wanted to know about dinosaurs. I have a very selective learning mind. If it is boring, it goes in one ear and out the other. If it is something I'm interested in, I'm hyper focused but I only retain a small amount of info unless I dwell on it many many times. It's funny how I didn't want to learn about the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws when I was young. It's as if I knew then that that stuff was meaningless to prove points .

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't do well when it came to the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws. In my eyes, it was nonsense.

It's essential to science. Otherwise you might as well accept YE creationism, flat Earth, and Bigfoot.

It's funny how I didn't want to learn about the scientific method, hypotheses, theories and laws when I was young. It's as if I knew then that that stuff was meaningless to prove points

Well, you could always reject that stuff and toss your computer, modern medicine, automobiles, and the like, and go back to living without science.

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't think God created the first living things? That's what Darwin thought. But since evolution isn't about the origin of life, it doesn't matter. No matter how it started, evolution would still work the same way we see it working now.

Your paragon...

It's funny that YECs, who so frequently idolize their leaders, assume that scientists do the same for notable scientists.

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Darwin was a believing Christian when he wrote his book on evolution. He even attributed the origin of life to God in that book. Later, his views changed after the death of a beloved daughter.

He further stated that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence.

This is true. Science can't explain God. That's not what it's for. You might as well blame plumbing for not being able to explain Christ. This is why believers and unbelievers alike can do science. Just as believers and unbelievers can both do plumbing.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

This is true. But you're talking about universal common descent, not evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. A fact. Macroevolution is an observed fact. But until we could analyze DNA, we weren't certain that common descent was true. Even Darwin suggested that there might have been any number of originally created organisms. We understand how evolution works. While every new bit of evidence continues to confirm universal common descent of all life on Earth, we will never be absolutely certain. Being 99.9% sure, is not absolute certainty. Likewise, we can't be absolutely certain the sun will continue to shine tomorrow. But we are very, very confident that it will. For the same reason we are very, very confident of common descent.

I'm answering this post AFTER your post mentioning scientific theory, hypotheses, ... Back in my day in middle school this "universal common descent" was called evolution. There was no such thing as "universal common descent" back when I went to high school or at least they didn't teach it.

As for the DNA, it's an iffy way to connect the dots, in my eyes. I'll look at its use in evolution science. Another thing I'll get back to you on. But just remember - I'm a procrastinator .

 

[River Jordan]

Okay, I see now that science has a totally different view of the word theory.

Which isn't unusual, like how "clutch" means something different in sports than it does in auto engineering.

I don't argue against that anymore; thank you for clarifying the differences.

You're very welcome.

I haven't changed my mind on evolution though. I still don't believe that Homo sapiens started out as one celled protozoans or protocells and through billions of years of "evolution" became man. Too many unproven links with the first being the creation of a living "thing" from non-living matter.

We can disagree and that's okay.

I think in the future, if you want the public to understand something that science takes for granted, the explanations have to be brought down to the common man's level not the other way around.

We also live in an age where just about everything is just a few clicks away. Googling "what does theory mean in science" instantly gives tons of links and material to read through.

 

[AaronClaricus]

I'll look around for one that is short and to the point .

One of the things to keep in mind with testing abiogenesis(which is a distinct hypothesis that does not overlap with Evolution): We are preparing to test Abiogenesis predictions on at least 3-4 other solar bodies.

Europa Clipper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This mission won't complete all the research necessary but it is sensitive enough to detect a single bacteria in samples. Combined with a followup mission to sequence any life found, we could very well find life outside of earth. There's are no good examples of a creationist hypothesis that accounts for life outside of earth.

I would talk more about it but we'd need a new abiogenesis thread.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm answering this post AFTER your post mentioning scientific theory, hypotheses, ... Back in my day in middle school this "universal common descent" was called evolution.

When I was in high school in the 60s, the basketball coach taught biology. And he knew the difference. This was in Iowa; I can't speak for places like Mississippi or Arkansas. But there really is no excuse not to know.

There was no such thing as "universal common descent" back when I went to high school or at least they didn't teach it.

They did in my HS. And it wasn't a very good school district for Iowa.

As for the DNA, it's an iffy way to connect the dots, in my eyes.

Comes down to evidence. And every time we test it, it works.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

"We also live in an age where just about everything is just a few clicks away. Googling "what does theory mean in science" instantly gives tons of links and material to read through." quoted from River Jordan

But sometimes they differ in their definition causing confusion amongst the general population. I'm not saying this is what happened to the word "theory". Science seems unanimous about its definition and the general population seem unanimous about its definition. But there are other areas where that isn't case. Views differ significantly in other topics - the age of the Earth, does black matter exist as abundant as some claim it does, out of Africa dates for Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapien, quantum entanglement.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

"When I was in high school in the 60s, the basketball coach taught biology. And he knew the difference. This was in Iowa; I can't speak for places like Mississippi or Arkansas. But there really is no excuse not to know." quoted from The Barbarian

In Punsutawney, Pennsylvania in the 1970s and early 1980s no such luck. I just asked my sister who is a science teacher there in Punxsutawney now and she said she'd have to look up the term. That means they don't use it that much either. So don't assume everybody has been taught that term.