Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

Christian_Victor · Jan 7, 2005

Eternal Mindset said:
It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

A theory IS a hypothosis. It's not called "The fact of Evolution", although it's true. It's really called the "Theory of Evolution" or the "Hypothosis of Evolution".

Army of Juan · Jan 7, 2005

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
Okay it doesnt matter.. Hypothesis or Theory... Theory is just an idea that they THINK might be true, but never has been PROVEN!! I mean Why are there still MONKEYS AND APES if we evolved from them??? and dont give me that different species bull, so what they evolved from what? a chunk of bacteria?? Bacteria is still around.. if we evolved from that there would be any more of it.. it just doesnt add up.. Even if that was true, which its not... What are you living for? absolutely nothing.. thats what..Wow look at me I'd rather be a cousin to a monkey than be created by something so much more powerful that are little human minds cant even begin to comprehend.. Yeah also, since we evolved,, there is no heaven or hell or limbo, when we die, thats it.. wow dude that sucks if u think that.. I mean your choices are:

- Created By an awsome god, who has prepared a place for our afterlife that is so awsome that it is out of our comprehension

or

- My great grandpa was an ape, and there is nothing after this life..

Soo Even if evolution was true (which it is not) you wouldnt even have the satisfaction of saying I told YOU SO!! because there is nothing to live for!! No Awsome eternal life, not anything to look forward too, nothing to believe in or to inspire you.. I mean then human race hasnt changed much in the past 2000 years, and we havent been around that long... seriously, just THINK about it, evolution doesnt add up.. and if your one of those people that think we were put here by aliens... id rather come from an ape.. cmon now..

All those plants changing and mice changing, is called a animal or plant ADAPTING to its surrounding! Evolution is something completely different.. Maybe if those mice lost all their hair, and walked on two legs, u might have something..

Cats dont have Dogs
Dogs Dont HAVE Cats
Birds dont have snakes
Lions dont have fish

Every animal was created exactly they way God intended.. There is no mixture of animals.. like we dont see a natural animal that is half dog half cat unless it is some freaky human expierement...

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.. Thats not what i set out to do, Please this is a very hot subject and is fun to debate about..

By the way, all this debating and division and people splitting up into different religions and pagan beliefs was said that is was going to happen in the bible, so by arguing this, we are actually proving the bible..

"All Men will hate you because of me"

Is this Hovind under a different name? Can anyone really be this clueless? No offense but you should lurk more before posting nonsense like this.

Split Rock · Jan 7, 2005

Avaya said:
But . . . . . . . . they ARE still mice. Right?

Isn't that really just 'adaptation' instead of 'evolution'?

Adaption is evolution.

Evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population. This obviously includes changes that allow a population to adapt to a particular environment.

Try not to get information on evolution from Creationist websites or books.

GoSeminoles! · Jan 7, 2005

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
Theory is just an idea that they THINK might be true, but never has been PROVEN!!

This is classic error #1.

I mean Why are there still MONKEYS AND APES if we evolved from them???

This is classic error #2.

Bacteria is still around.. if we evolved from that there would be any more of it..

Classic error #3.

Even if that was true, which its not... What are you living for? absolutely nothing.. thats what..

Classic error #4.

Cats dont have Dogs
Dogs Dont HAVE Cats
Birds dont have snakes
Lions dont have fish

Implying that this is what evolution predicts is classic error #5. Dude, you're classic!

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone..

The only person who ought to be offended by this is your own intellect. You are entirely ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually states. Fortunately, that is correctable. Here is what the ToE actually states.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
Okay it doesnt matter.. Hypothesis or Theory... Theory is just an idea that they THINK might be true, but never has been PROVEN!!

No theory in science is ever absolutel proven. For an example, that bacteria cause disease is still a theory (ie the Germ theory of Disease).

I mean Why are there still MONKEYS AND APES if we evolved from them???

Why are your parents and cousins still around? Same reason.

Or do you think the theory of evolution requires that only one species can occupy the planet at any one time?

and dont give me that different species bull, so what they evolved from what? a chunk of bacteria?? Bacteria is still around.. if we evolved from that there would be any more of it.. it just doesnt add up..

Do parents turn into their children?

Even if that was true, which its not... What are you living for? absolutely nothing.. thats what..Wow look at me I'd rather be a cousin to a monkey than be created by something so much more powerful that are little human minds cant even begin to comprehend.. Yeah also, since we evolved,, there is no heaven or hell or limbo, when we die, thats it.. wow dude that sucks if u think that.. I mean your choices are:

So you don't accept evolution because you have a large ego?

Army of Juan · Jan 7, 2005

Loudmouth said:
So you don't accept evolution because you have a large ego?

Tashena · Jan 7, 2005

Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain. It is understandable. However, I must say extremly flawed. I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack. The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth. There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels. Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION. I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud. It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

warispeace · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain. It is understandable. However, I must say extremly flawed. I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack. The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth. There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels. Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION. I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud. It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

Why do creationists keep putting "theory" in quotes? It's really annoying.

You're right, it is 'wack' to think that you came from a monkey. It's a good thing that evolution doesn't teach that, isn't it?

You have it backwards. A scientific theory is something that describes a body of facts, not the other way around.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain. It is understandable. However, I must say extremly flawed. I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack. The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth. There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels.

I fully believe that Jesus was on this earth, the evidence is strong in favor of this. However, there is only one source (the Bible) that records his resurrection and his claims of divinity. There is no objective evidence that supports this claim. It must be taken on faith, which is why christianity is a religion.

Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION.

Absolutely false. You can go out and make the same observationst that Darwin did this very day. One of the stronger arguments in support of evolution within Origin of Species is endemism. Endemism is the propensity for species to more closely related to species around them instead of species in the same niche elsewhere on Earth. You can make this same observation today. If Darwin had never written a word the theory of evolution would still have been discovered. If Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul had never written a word there would be zero evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence supporting evolution is observable by everyone.

I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud. It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

So you don't accept evolution because of your ego?

Hydra009 · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain. It is understandable. However, I must say extremly flawed.

You sound just like an atheist.

I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack. The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth. There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels.

Evolution =/= atheism. In fact, there are quite a few Christians who would beg to differ with your statement that the theory of evolution is completely wack.

Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION.

Be specific.

I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud.

Something bigger? Like dirt? It seems like both the Bible and science are in agreement on this matter.

It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

Accepted by whom as true? It already is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and a majority of Christians. There are no made up facts, evidence of both adaptation and speciation are numerous and well-supported.

Descended from a hairy beast, you say? Heh. Have you met my neighbors?

Ryal Kane · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain.

Irony Overload!

gladiatrix · Jan 7, 2005

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
Okay it doesnt matter.. Hypothesis or Theory... Theory is just an idea that they THINK might be true, but never has been PROVEN!! I mean Why are there still MONKEYS AND APES if we evolved from them??? and dont give me that different species bull, so what they evolved from what? a chunk of bacteria?? Bacteria is still around.. if we evolved from that there would be any more of it.. it just doesnt add up.

Simple answer to your question: Why Are There Still Monkeys?

Your question is illustrative of a common creationist misconception in that it assumes that evolution claims that there is some biological imperative for ALL members of a group to evolve to some "higher state of being", that there is some ultimate "goal". This notion is exemplified by Aristotle's Great Chain of Being. What you are falsely assuming is that evolution postulates something akin to Aristotle's Chain known as a cone or "ladder of progress" or progression from a "primitive" state to a more "advanced" state and that ALL organisms in a group "aspire" or are biologically driven to achieve that more "advanced" state. Implicit in your question is the additional bogus notion that humans are the "advanced" state and that all "monkeys" would necessarily have evolved into "us".

Are we necessarily the most "advanced" animal on this planet? I don't think so. It only seems so to US (this perspective could be most deceptive). To state it another way, it seems "so" to us because we are currently the one species actively involved in rearranging the face of planet Earth. As a result, we have, for good and/or ill, actually become one of the most formidable agents of "natural selection" of all time (just "ask" those bacteria who have speciated in response to our abuse of antibiotics, those species that become extinct as the result of our activities). This ability may ultimately prove to be our undoing, if we don't use it wisely ("It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!...Mommy spank!") and we will become as extinct as the dodo. In other words, we or rather our activities will serve as the "natural selection" agent that count us OUT of the ultimate reality show, the Survival Game.

LADDER OF PROGRESS?

Why your "ladder of progress" idea of evolution is flawed..

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
Even if that was true, which its not... What are you living for? absolutely nothing.. thats what..Wow look at me I'd rather be a cousin to a monkey than be created by something so much more powerful that are little human minds cant even begin to comprehend.. Yeah also, since we evolved,, there is no heaven or hell or limbo, when we die, thats it..

Well, you are that "monkey's cousin", whether you like it or not. As a matter of FACT, when you compare functionally important/significant genes (nonsynonymous genes) between us and chimps, one finds that chimps really belong in the human genus.

From Chimps are human, gene study implies

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.

Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, Homo, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.

On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).

Also see Study: Chimps Belong In Human Genus

Here is a link to that PNAS-published study: Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous (functionally important) DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

PNAS ABSTRACT

What do functionally important DNA sites, those scrutinized and shaped by natural selection, tell us about the place of humans in evolution? Here we compare {approx}90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. On a time scale, the coding DNA divergencies separate the humanchimpanzee clade from the gorilla clade at between 6 and 7 million years ago and place the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees at between 5 and 6 million years ago. The evolutionary rate of coding DNA in the catarrhine clade (Old World monkey and ape, including human) is much slower than in the lineage to mouse. Among the genes examined, 30 show evidence of positive selection during descent of catarrhines.

Nonsynonymous substitutions by themselves, in this subset of positively selected genes, group humans and chimpanzees closest to each other and have chimpanzees diverge about as much from the common humanchimpanzee ancestor as humans do. This functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee).

Get ready to pucker up and plant a fat one on your nearest "cousin" Bonzo at the next Christmas dinner!

Phred · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain.

Which is why humans have conjured up deities.

It is understandable. However, I must say extremly flawed. I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack.

Ok, so the theory is whack. Then explain why evolution happens. See, we're talking about an observable phenomena. Evolution. Life evolves, we've seen it, documented it and observed it. The Theory of Evolution is our attempt to explain WHY and HOW it happens. So if you think the theory is screwy, fine... then explain evolution in a better manner.

The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth.

Two points. First, there are not thousands of pieces of evidence. There is not one single solitary verifiable piece of evidence to suggest that Jesus actually lived. There are third-party writings by people who were not even contemporaries. Second, whether Jesus did or did not exist has NOTHING to do with evolution. NOTHING. Many if not most scientists who work in biology are Christian. Your contention is flawed.

There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels.

Again, irrelevant. Again untrue.

Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION.

No... what Darwin wrote is just a small part of the overwhelming evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Life itself evolves. Scientists don't rely upon a book to determine this, unlike you.

I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud.

Believe whatever you wish... Believe the Earth is flat and you're God for all I care... just quit pretending you have a clue about what evolution and science really are.

It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

The theory is already accepted as true. Perhaps once you've unblown your mind you might try to learn something instead of just spouting ignorance.

.

Dale Martin · Jan 7, 2005

So far every example that has peen presented is a case of micro evolution not macro evolution.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

Dale Martin said:
So far every example that has peen presented is a case of micro evolution not macro evolution.

Firstly, macro and micro evolution are the same process. For example, I can micro-walk to the store and macro-walk to the next town. The only difference between micro-walking and macro-walking is time and distance. It is the same for micro and macro evolution. It is a matter of time, not mechanism.

Could you give us an example of what you would consider macroevolution?

warispeace · Jan 7, 2005

Dale Martin said:
So far every example that has peen presented is a case of micro evolution not macro evolution.

It really doesn't matter what kind of evidence there is for evolution, it's never going to be enough. If we could see a mouse turning into a "non-mouse," creationists would say, "Well, you never see a dog turn into a pine cone!"

There is no such thing as macro-evolution. It is an invisible boundary that only exists in the minds of creationists. Evolution either exists, or it doesn't.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Even if you could proove in a laboratory that a form of evolution in animals can occur that by no means proves that it has happened thruout history. It would be like saying that it can be proven that it rains on planet earth and it can be proven that Mars is a planet therefore it rains on Mars
I wonder in the "fruit fly" example if there was any change in the DNA of the species. This would seem to be the defining factor.

Split Rock · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
Since the beginning of time humans have feared and made up stories of what they can not explain. It is understandable.

Yes, and this is why man invented science.. to find rational answers to understand our world.

Tashena said:
However, I must say extremly flawed. I'll come out and say it right now that I think the "theory" of evolution is is completly wack.

I'll come out and say it.. I think your understanding of science and evolution is "wack."

Tashena said:
The thing that gets me is how scientists have overlooked the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of credible evidence that supports the fact that Christ did infact walk this earth. There are hundreds of documents that scholars have determined of authentic antiquity pertaining to the gospels.

None of this has anything to do with science.

Tashena said:
Yet scientist go off and find one single document about what Darwin claimed to have seen or classified and determine it to be EVOLUTION.

A single document?? You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Tashena said:
I'm sorry but I just can't help but believe that we came from something bigger than an bacteria and simple compound sugars or a monkey for crying out loud. It completly blows my mind to think that some people are so illuded to the fact that we came from some form of a hairy beast than accept the fact that there is something bigger than us out in the heavens and we have to make up "facts" that point to a theory that has yet and I doubt will ever be accepted as true.

Science has nothing to do with what we would want to have. I would love to think I will not age any longer and never die... unfortunately science says otherwise.

Split Rock · Jan 7, 2005

A4C said:
Even if you could proove in a laboratory that a form of evolution in animals can occur that by no means proves that it has happened thruout history. It would be like saying that it can be proven that it rains on planet earth and it can be proven that Mars is a planet therefore it rains on Mars
I wonder in the "fruit fly" example if there was any change in the DNA of the species. This would seem to be the defining factor.

Portuguese mice stranded on the islands by Medieval sailors have since spawned up to six daughter species with a chromosomal variance of both count and type, such as would not permit them to interbreed with their European cousins anymore.

I guess you agree now? (at least for the mouse example)

Mechanical Bliss · Jan 7, 2005

Army of Juan said:
No offense but you should lurk more before posting nonsense like this.

Yeah, I really wish newbies would investigate the forum a bit before posting. They often act like they are posting something so groundbreaking or something that hasn't already been posted tens or hundreds of times here before and has already been addressed. They also lack a basic understanding of how science works and what scientists' conclusions really are and from that position of ignorance act like they have single-handedly overturned major branches of science from biology to geology.

Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

Active Member

Senior Member

Conflation of Blathers

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Contributor

Senior Member

Active Member

ubi dubium, ibi libertas

Contributor

bel esprit

Senior Veteran

Card-carrying EAC member

Junior Mint

Active Member

Contributor

ubi dubium, ibi libertas

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency