Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Davian]

Is the science you embrace today true or false?

Completely false. Even the computer in front of you does not work.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Darwinism....

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.​

What's the difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

Darwinism by definition has to be stuck in the historical past with the writings of Darwin. The theory of evolution is able to accept additions beyond what Darwin spoke of, including punctuated equilibrium, neutral drift, DNA, epigenetics . . .

 

[ViaCrucis]

What's the difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

It's the difference between Newtonism and the theory of gravitation.

Physics has come a long way since Isaac Newton, and the theory of gravitation has undergone significant changes and improvements due to the work of people like Einstein; but then we also wouldn't call it Einsteinism either, as there is also the important work of all sorts of physicists since Einstein, such as Hawking.

To accuse modern physicists of being "Newtonists" and believing in "Newtonism" is about the same as accusing modern biologists of being "Darwinists" and believing in "Darwinism".

Both demonstrate a fundamental absence of understanding not just the relevant science, but a fundamental absence of understanding science itself.

We can speak of "Darwinian evolution" in the same way that we can talk about "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian physics". But such language speaks rather specifically of the theory/theories held by those individuals in their day.

"Darwinian evolution" remains true today insofar as Darwin's basic insights into natural selection are true; likewise "Newtonian physics" remain true insofar as Newton's basic insights into the laws of motion are true. But both biology and physics have come a long way in the last few centuries.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ophiolite]

Duplicate post.

 

[Ophiolite]

What's the difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution?

What we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. Our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is still far from complete and not fully integrated. Large steps have been taken over a century and a half. Is it important to mark those steps through different terminology? Important yes, but not necessarily essential.


Darwin's idea was accepted with surprising alacrity by the scientific community, supporting the claim by some that it was an idea whose time had come. (And Wallace’s independent derivation of the theory served to offer confirmation of that notion.) Yet by the turn of the century Darwinism was all but dead as people gravitated to mutation and the concepts of Mendel rediscovered by Bateman, de Vries and Corren. When the two concepts were fused in the 1930s and 40s did the resultant concept merit a new name? One could hardly call it Haldane/Huxley/Dhobzhanksy/ Fisher/Simpson/Stebbins/Wright/Mayrism, so the Modern Synthesis was born.


And now, more than half a century later, we've learnt even more about the mechanisms and processes, so much more that some people think a new name is in order. Is it?


I said at the outset that what we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. But is this true? Darwin may have been the right man in the right place at the right time, but he ignited a revolution that is arguably of greater scientific importance than any other. His handful of principles still lies at the heart of evolutionary thought – descent with modification from a common ancestor through the mechanism of natural selection. So my view is simple. Let's just call the current hypothesis and those that will develop in future, Darwinism. Direct, concise, effective.


And it has the secondary advantage that it will continue inflame the creationists among you.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

what we appear to see is the theory of evolution actually evolves to stay in existence but i am not sure if that in itself is proof of it's own theory.

 

[SteveB28]

what we appear to see is the theory of evolution actually evolves to stay in existence but i am not sure if that in itself is proof of it's own theory.

Do you mean it has a history like every other theory in science!?

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Do you mean it has a history like every other theory in science!?

no i mean more like reinvention for reinventions sake.

 

[SteveB28]

no i mean more like reinvention for reinventions sake.

I'm sure you do. But how do you make a distinction between evolutionary theory's 'transformation' and that of gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonic theory, cosmological theory, quantum theory - in short, every other theory in science?

 

[Shemjaza]

what we appear to see is the theory of evolution actually evolves to stay in existence but i am not sure if that in itself is proof of it's own theory.

The important thing to remember is that any scientific theory is an explanation for facts. Scientific research is the finding of facts. As we get new facts we adjust or in extreme examples abandon our explanation.

This applies to evolution because over the last 150 years we've found a lot of new facts and the explanation has adjusted and expanded, but it still matches all the facts.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

The important thing to remember is that any scientific theory is an explanation for facts. Scientific research is the finding of facts. As we get new facts we adjust or in extreme examples abandon our explanation.

This applies to evolution because over the last 150 years we've found a lot of new facts and the explanation has adjusted and expanded, but it still matches all the facts.

at what point do all the changes show it should have been given up altogether.

 

[SteveB28]

at what point do all the changes show it should have been given up altogether.

When one if those facts contradicts the theory. I am informed that this theory is one that leaves itself widely open to disproof in this regard.

But, 150 years - and still it stands unscathed.

 

[SkyWriting]

So if you believe in evolution tell us why.

99% of what we know about evolution is testable.
Theories about past events are not testable and
are based on conjecture and are fictional stories.

 

[Shemjaza]

at what point do all the changes show it should have been given up altogether.

When it's untrue.

The exact nature and method of evolution have changed, but species changing and all life being related is still true.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

When it's untrue.

The exact nature and method of evolution have changed, but species changing and all life being related is still true.

species changing within a species is true but that was once adaption.

 

[Shemjaza]

species changing within a species is true but that was once adaption.

That's all evolution needs. That and time.

You just get a species split into two groups then over time the subtle difference in their "adaptations" and you have two different species.

Over a hundred thousand years you can get a grizzly and a polar bear... and over a few million years, you get apes and men.

 

[bhsmte]

99% of what we know about evolution is testable.
Theories about past events are not testable and
are based on conjecture and are fictional stories.

How does your above statement impact the credibility of the bible?

 

[Ophiolite]

at what point do all the changes show it should have been given up altogether.

At the point where the changes are changes to the fundamental principles of the theory.

Darwin postulated descent with modification, probably from a common ancestor, via the medium of natural selection.

Nothing has overturned those concepts. We now know, as Darwin did not, the source of the variations on which natural selection acts - mutations. We also know that there are some other, comparatively minor, processes that can lead to evolution. such as genetic drift.

Researchers have vigorous and animated debates about detail: which fossil represents the ancestor of a particular line; the rate at which evolution occurs; etc. But there are no meaningful disagreements about the reality and fundamentals of evolution.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

At the point where the changes are changes to the fundamental principles of the theory.

Darwin postulated descent with modification, probably from a common ancestor, via the medium of natural selection.

Nothing has overturned those concepts. We now know, as Darwin did not, the source of the variations on which natural selection acts - mutations. We also know that there are some other, comparatively minor, processes that can lead to evolution. such as genetic drift.

Researchers have vigorous and animated debates about detail: which fossil represents the ancestor of a particular line; the rate at which evolution occurs; etc. But there are no meaningful disagreements about the reality and fundamentals of evolution.

darwin himself said the fossil record will either prove it true or false and when it showed false they come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to rebalance the lack.

 

[sfs]

darwin himself said the fossil record will either prove it true or false and when it showed false they come up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to rebalance the lack.

Sorry, but that's not at all accurate. Darwin himself never said that evolution had to proceed at a constant rate. The argument over punc eq is whether change occurs in fits and starts or smoothly, not whether change occurs at all. The question is whether the kind of change that occurs in this plot is gradual or punctuated:

I really don't think Darwin would be unhappy with these data whichever side of punc eq you come down on.