What makes Evolution a theory?

[Hvizsgyak]

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

Hey, you leave Big Foot Alone - He exists - somewhere.

 

[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.

I looked up the state standards. Apparently common descent was removed from the standards, but after your time there. This is like removing Ohm's Law from electronics. Small wonder so many states in the US are so far behind the rest of the world in education.

Not true in every state, but it's deeply troubling in a world where science plays an ever greater role.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hey, you leave Big Foot Alone - He exists - somewhere.

Of the three, his existence is the most credible.

 

[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.

Yes, words often have different meanings in different contexts. Have you ever looked up the definition for the word "run'?

Definition of RUN

to go faster than a walk; specifically : to go steadily by springing steps so that both feet leave the ground for an instant in each step; to move at a fast gallop; flee, retreat, escape… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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 .

I was the same way, but that's because I was raised in a very average, 1970's-80's, dysfunctional household and extended family. For me, science was reducible to looking at my favorite Dinosaur book, and watching Star Trek and Star Wars, a little Cosmos, and reading Marvel comic books out the wahzoo. (In other words, I was about as close to an empty vessel for real knowledge as one could get and still remain in the public school system ).

Later on, somehow with my engagement with the Christian Faith, science, history, psychology, a little math-----all the other academic things I generally abhorred as a small kid and teenager---- suddenly took on significance.

The Theory of Evolution? ... not afraid it and I don't worry about it.

 

[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.


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

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

I'm still not convinced Mr Barbarian about the DNA. Science is basing their theory on DNA now by saying that some animals have the same sequence of DNA in their bodies as other animals. Science's conclusion, therefore, is the two animals must have a common ancestor. That being the case, isn't it possible that two different types of animals could have the exact same sequences of DNA in their genes and not have a common ancestor? I think it can be possible but really, I don't think there is anyway to truly prove either side of the DNA history.

Plus, I have heard that when they test the DNA sequences, scientists are only testing 2% of the entire DNA strand not the whole strand. So, it is possible to have the same sequences of DNA in two different creatures but they are not related.

Finally, I have one more video which has a good explanation against the theory of evolution.

I just think there are other decent theories that handle the origin and evolution of man. And I think by squashing these alternative theories isn't right when science's own theories aren't 100% proven. Something down the line could change everything.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still not convinced Mr Barbarian about the DNA. Science is basing their theory on DNA now by saying that some animals have the same sequence of DNA in their bodies as other animals.

Just one of many sources of evidence for common descent. Even more impressive, broken genes in related taxa are broken in the same way, indicating common descent. And we can test this by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent.

That being the case, isn't it possible that two different types of animals could have the exact same sequences of DNA in their genes and not have a common ancestor?

The likelihoods would be greater than shuffling a deck of cards and getting the exact same order twice. That's 1/52!, an astonishingly huge number. I've had creationists say that God did it deliberately to test our faith. But that requires that God be deceptive. Which no Christian would accept. It's not just broken genes, it's telomere remnants in places where a fusion would have to occur if common descent was true, and viral remnants inserted in precisely the same places by chance. Just too unlikely to consider seriously.

Plus, I have heard that when they test the DNA sequences, scientists are only testing 2% of the entire DNA strand not the whole strand.

The first tests were DNA hybridization that measured all of the DNA. Those simple tests gave us pretty much what sequencing only coding DNA gives us. The precise similarities differ, but the numbers always give the same phylogenies. (Barbarian checks)

One of the first by Fitch and Margoliash

And it's not just DNA. Highly-conserved molecules also give us very similar results:

Finally, I have one more video which has a good explanation against the theory of evolution.

Summarize one or more of the arguments therein that you think are solid ones. We'll discuss them. I'm assuming you understand them well enough to tell us about them. If not, why do you think they are good arguments?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Just one of many sources of evidence for common descent. Even more impressive, broken genes in related taxa are broken in the same way, indicating common descent. And we can test this by looking at the genomes of organisms of known descent.


The likelihoods would be greater than shuffling a deck of cards and getting the exact same order twice. That's 1/52!, an astonishingly huge number. I've had creationists say that God did it deliberately to test our faith. But that requires that God be deceptive. Which no Christian would accept. It's not just broken genes, it's telomere remnants in places where a fusion would have to occur if common descent was true, and viral remnants inserted in precisely the same places by chance. Just too unlikely to consider seriously.


The first tests were DNA hybridization that measured all of the DNA. Those simple tests gave us pretty much what sequencing only coding DNA gives us. The precise similarities differ, but the numbers always give the same phylogenies. (Barbarian checks)

View attachment 364582
One of the first by Fitch and Margoliash

And it's not just DNA. Highly-conserved molecules also give us very similar results:
View attachment 364583

Summarize one or more of the arguments therein that you think are solid ones. We'll discuss them. I'm assuming you understand them well enough to tell us about them. If not, why do you think they are good arguments?

It's going to take me a few days to digest this info but for now I give you a .