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

Mechanical Bliss · Jan 7, 2005

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

Except for all those examples of speciation that were cited. Macroevolution is defined as speciation.

gladiatrix · Jan 7, 2005

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:
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

If dogs had "suddenly" had cats or frogs "suddenly" had cows (the favorite creationists strawman of what is meant by "one species evolving into another"), that would DISPROVE evolution. You really shouldn't get your ideas about evolution from creationists and maybe should read a good biology book instead. So no, there are no half-frog, half-cow "transitional fossils" as demanded by Hovind et al (it doesn't matter if one is a YEC, OEC or gap creationists, they all "demand" to see such "evidence", aka the half-frog, half-cow transitional). You don't see the above because that is NOT what evolution is about and never was.

CCWoody said in Post 480
Just because two flowers can get together to make a 3rd kind does not mean that a cat and a parrot can get together. Get back to me when you naturally observe the cross breed of a parrot with a cat.

Actually the existence of a "parr-cat" (parrot/cat hybrid) would be evidence that evolution was wrong. However, nothing in evolution predicts or claims that such a thing can or would happen. This is yet another of your "Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tale" definitions that you seem to expect us not to challenge (and you have the gall to whine about strawman, you've got the market cornered on these "gentlemen"!) But then again, gall is about ALL you do have instead of an argument.......

Problem with this is that creationists such as yourself always want to see some kinds of weird half-parrot/half-cat. If you're going to redefine transitional fossil to exactly what biologists don't expect to find, then of course you'll never find one.

I don't have any "parr-cats" but how about a Peacockodile?

Or a Hippohogomus????

Or my personal favorite, a Birdaffe!!??

http://www.geocities.com/blindfools/trans02.html

(ÎXØ¥Ê) said:

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.

Click to expand...

So you are claiming that your God is responsible for the "designs" we know as life? Life is quite a "mess" (designs that are badly flawed)==>life looks more like the work of an Absent-minded Tinkerer, not that of an Intelligent Designer....just look at some of these "intelligent"(NOT!) designs....

Here is something else to consider===>If God indeed designed "creation", then He is one LOUSY engineer! What follows is just a very small list of bad/weird/down-right-strange designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones. Designs are not "optimal" (what one expects from an "omnimax" God), but "Rube Goldberg", ad hoc designs the arise from natural selection. The design "selected" is one that works. The one that works isn't always the "best" or "optimal" design. Here is just a short list of these lousy "designs". So your God is really responsible for this mess? Looks like natural selection-did-it (unintelligent design) to me....

Oolon's Big List of Suboptimal Designs

Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes by Oolon

Since JohnR7 refused to answer this question on another thread, perhaps you would like to explain to us why whales getting the bends is an example of an "intelligent" design.

Add to that the fact that 99% of all life on this planet has gone extinct (is your God just a thorough incompetent and/or doesn't He care?). Creationists, of course, believe God destroyed all life with the flood (99% went extinct 4000 years ago in one fell swoop). However, these extinctions show no evidence of having happened at one time, but have occurred over vast periods of time, punctated by several instances of mass extinctions. In other words, there is no evidence of God "scoring one big kill" (so to speak) with a world wide flood, so that argument fails.

Your God is responsible for all of the above (bad designs, extinctions, etc.), really???

Phred · Jan 7, 2005

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

No difference exists. Evolution is evolution. Small changes over a long enough time add up to big changes.

.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Split Rock said:
I guess you agree now? (at least for the mouse example)

Do you have testimony from the medieval sailors I could look at? Were there scientists present while this experiment was taking place? Was the island scanned sciemntifically to ensure there was no corrupt seed before the experiment began?

warispeace · Jan 7, 2005

Mechanical Bliss said:
Except for all those examples of speciation that were cited. Macroevolution is defined as speciation.

Actually, I've never heard a concrete definition of macroevolution. The definition seems to keep changing based on the subject at hand. One popular definition is change between 'kinds', which is of course meaningless.

Loudmouth · 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.

That is why fossils and DNA evidence is so important. These types of evidence support evolution in the past, just as we see evolution happening today.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

warispeace said:
Actually, I've never heard a concrete definition of macroevolution. The definition seems to keep changing based on the subject at hand. One popular definition is change between 'kinds', which is of course meaningless.

Within science, marcroevolution is the production of a new species. Within creationism, it is the amount of change that can only be seen in the fossil record. Or more accurately, the creationist version of macroevolution is evolution that takes longer than 150 years.

Mechanical Bliss · Jan 7, 2005

warispeace said:
Actually, I've never heard a concrete definition of macroevolution. The definition seems to keep changing based on the subject at hand. One popular definition is change between 'kinds', which is of course meaningless.

What I mean is, in science, the term macroevolution refers to speciation.

Creationists however have used the term as a catchphrase despite its actual definition and shift that definition around to be whatever they need it to be, so you're right about that.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Has the "Theory of evolution" got over the stumbling block of asexual to sexual reproduction. Surely when this obstacle was circumvented somehow only then could it justify the title "theory"

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

A4C said:
Has the "Theory of evolution" got over the stumbling block of asexual to sexual reproduction. Surely when this obstacle was circumvented somehow only then could it justify the title "theory"

To briefly answer your question, yes, that hurdle has been crossed. Even bacteria swap DNA from time to time, so there are very few examples of truly asexual organisms out there anyway.

But there is a bigger question. Even if this answer was still unknown, why wouldn't evolution still be considered a theory? If the answer were still unknown, then this would be an area that could POTENTIALLY falsify evolution. However, not knowing does not automatically falsify a theory. A theory is an explanation for observations, not ALL observations. At the same time, a theory can not be falsified by any observations. Not knowing how sexual selection evolved, or could have evolved, does not falsify evolution. Therefore, even without this knowledge, evolution would still be considered a theory.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Loudmouth said:
To briefly answer your question, yes, that hurdle has been crossed. Even bacteria swap DNA from time to time, so there are very few examples of truly asexual organisms out there anyway.

But there is a bigger question. Even if this answer was still unknown, why wouldn't evolution still be considered a theory? If the answer were still unknown, then this would be an area that could POTENTIALLY falsify evolution. However, not knowing does not automatically falsify a theory. A theory is an explanation for observations, not ALL observations. At the same time, a theory can not be falsified by any observations. Not knowing how sexual selection evolved, or could have evolved, does not falsify evolution. Therefore, even without this knowledge, evolution would still be considered a theory.

Because of the reproduction aspect, it is automatically invalidated as a theory and should only be considered hypothosis as suggested. As for being applied to humanity and every living thing when the basics cannot be proven is deception at its highest level.

Gracchus · 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 obvious rejoinder would get me a warning from the mods.

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.

Were I to concede this, which I do not, it still has nothing to do with evolution.

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

We can stipulate that the "gospels" are somewhat less than two thousand years old. That is not evidence they are accurate.

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.

One single document? What are you 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.

The fact that your mind and imagination are too stunted to encompass evolution does not make evolution any less real.

Tashena said:
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.

There are lots of things bigger than I. Planets, stars galaxies are bigger than all of us. And just what "facts" have you made up? (You did say "we".) If you are counting yourself out, having mis-spoken yourself, what "facts" have we made up.

Finally, 95% of all practicing scientists accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the observed phenomena. And if only biologists and geologists are considered the percentage rises to 99%.

I do find it believable that you will never accept as true any thing that threatens to bring order to the comfortable confusion of an unreasoning and slothful mind.

Finding God is not the end of the journey. It is barely the beginning. You may think that you are resting on your laurels, but what you are sitting on is brown and stinky. I would advise you to get up, clean up, and move on.

Split Rock · Jan 7, 2005

A4C said:
Do you have testimony from the medieval sailors I could look at? Were there scientists present while this experiment was taking place? Was the island scanned sciemntifically to ensure there was no corrupt seed before the experiment began?

This is based on published research. See:
Britton-Davidian, J. et al. Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice. Nature 403, 158 (January 13, 2000).

What do you mean by "corrupt seed?" These are mice.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Split Rock said:
This is based on published research. See:
Britton-Davidian, J. et al. Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice. Nature 403, 158 (January 13, 2000).

What do you mean by "corrupt seed?" These are mice.

please reproduce the evidence so we all can see it . Are you not talking here about mice with some type of defect or something? Were they not still mice with the DNA that all mice have?

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

A4C said:
please reproduce the evidence so we all can see it . Are you not talking here about mice with some type of defect or something? Were they not still mice with the DNA that all mice have?

The mice had differently shaped chromosomes (groups of DNA) and different counts of chromosomes (more or fewer groups of DNA). This is not a defect, this is evolution.

Secondly, no mouse, other than a genetic twin, has DNA exactly like any other mouse. In fact, your DNA is unlike any other human's DNA (unless you have an identical twin). So even if they were the same species, they would still have different DNA.

alec · 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?

Yes it is a hypothesis. It is marketing to call it a theory

Tashena · Jan 7, 2005

I guess that how I presented myself would seem somewhat astrange to several of you and I have no problem with that. I do not mean to offend or upset anyone with "my lack of knowledge on the theory of evolution". Just like I am not offended by several members' lack of basic biblical and factual evidences. And what I meant by a "single document" I was paraphrasing... i thought some people would pick up on that but apparently I was mistaken. I will put it in terms easier to understand from my perspective. I believe that things adapt... yeah it only seems natural but for things to completly change or wait.... I know this one from high school biology... change on a molecular level is that part of the theory of evolution or am I still off? Anyways I do not believe in a God because I simply can't explain or pin down some of the nitty gritty details like some remarkable members have done on why and how we change over millions of trillions of years... but I have faith in the "unknown" or better yet for comfort reasons of my own... yeah... um GOD because it is a fact that reads in to a believer's heart... it is unexplainable to many and yet so obvious to many, many more.

A4C · Jan 7, 2005

Loudmouth said:
Not knowing how sexual selection evolved, or could have evolved, does not falsify evolution. Therefore, even without this knowledge, evolution would still be considered a theory.

Again I point out my previous response:

A4C said:
Because of the reproduction aspect, it is automatically invalidated as a theory and should only be considered hypothosis as suggested. As for being applied to humanity and every living thing when the basics cannot be proven is deception at its highest level.

Perhaps somebody else might be able to justify the term "Theory" when such a vital piece of the "puzzle" is missing.

Loudmouth · Jan 7, 2005

Tashena said:
I guess that how I presented myself would seem somewhat astrange to several of you and I have no problem with that. I do not mean to offend or upset anyone with "my lack of knowledge on the theory of evolution". Just like I am not offended by several members' lack of basic biblical and factual evidences.

No offense is taken as long as you do not repeat the same mistakes over and over. Us evos might snap back at times, but it is never meant personally.

And what I meant by a "single document" I was paraphrasing... i thought some people would pick up on that but apparently I was mistaken.

Did you mean Darwin's "Origin of Species"?

I will put it in terms easier to understand from my perspective. I believe that things adapt... yeah it only seems natural but for things to completly change or wait.... I know this one from high school biology... change on a molecular level is that part of the theory of evolution or am I still off?

So species can change, but not change a lot? What prevents small changes from adding up to large changes?

As to the "molecular level", this is fully accounted within the theory of evolution. The most fundamental type of molecular change is mutation, where the molecule of DNA is changed. Changes to the molecule of DNA causes variation. Natural selection then causes "good changes" to spread more quickly through the population than "bad changes". All observed changes at the molecular level can be traced back to mutations.

Anyways I do not believe in a God because I simply can't explain or pin down some of the nitty gritty details like some remarkable members have done on why and how we change over millions of trillions of years... but I have faith in the "unknown" or better yet for comfort reasons of my own... yeah... um GOD because it is a fact that reads in to a believer's heart... it is unexplainable to many and yet so obvious to many, many more.

Hey, that's great. I was christian at one point but have fallen out of the faith since. Evolution and science were never part of my decision to leave the church, and I fail to understand why christians view evolution as a challenge to their faith. Creationism, in my view, is an extension of human pride, an attempt at telling God how he created instead of looking at the creation itself and letting the creation tell man how it happened.

DJ_Ghost · Jan 7, 2005

Eternal Mindset said:
That's nice
Well, as that said, we can guess from a bunch of facts that something is most likely true. That "educated guess" is called a hypothesis until it can be repeated in a lab.

Actually that's not true, science is falsificationist and not verificationist, look up Karl Popper for more details, however the simple explanation is this;

Once we have a hypothesis and a bunch of supporting evidence we can make predictions, we predict what we absolutely should not find if the hypothesis is true, then we go looking for it. The falsificationist methods allows us to construct theories by trying to disprove the theory, the more often we fail to do that the stronger the theory becomes.

Unfortunately some one seems to be teaching you that science is verificationist, and this has not been true for a long time, although a lot of high schools seem to teach that it is. You may want to look up the problem with induction and verificationism as well as the falsificationist methodology and Karl Popper if you want a good, in depth explanation of how science is actually conducted.

I hope that is of some use to you.

Ghost

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

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Card-carrying EAC member

Junior Mint

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

ubi dubium, ibi libertas

Contributor

Contributor

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Contributor

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Senior Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Contributor

Member

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Contributor

Trad Goth

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency