If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Timshel]

When I say it is not a fact, I am not calling it into question. I am using the scientific terminology. And since it cannot be proven (indeed nothing in science can be proven), calling it a fact would be a misnomer.

Nonsense. Science does not necessarily try to prove facts. It tries to explain the how and why of facts. Theories are tested explanations of facts.

If facts and proof were impossible then science would be impossible and theory would be just as trivial as Dixie claims, because there could be no proof of a theory's falsity. All theories would be untestable.

 

[Timshel]

You want to make this about macho nonsense, go ahead.

The topic was about a scientific theory. And if you will look up the definition of "fact", and compare it to what a true scientific theory is, you will see we are not pansying about anything.

The overall theory of evolution cannot be proven to be a fact. You may believe it is true. But that does not make it a fact.

Evolution is a fact. It's not "belief," it is known through observation. The theory of evolution, i.e., how it happens is... a theory.

 

[Good Luck]

It's funny to hear you guys argue this and both sides fuck it up. Theory is not just a guess. It's testable and it has been put to tests. But there are also facts.

Quite correct. But you are not quite clear what distinguishes one (theory supported by observed facts) and the facts themselves.

Drop an apple on earth and it will fall to the ground. That's a fact.

Wrong. That is a prediction, based on the theory of gravitation. Until something is actually observed to happen, it is not a fact.

Why/how it happens, that's the theory of gravity.

In part. Theory also makes predictions (ie: an apple will fall to the ground if dropped.)

We evolved from some type of ape. That's a fact.

No, it is not a fact. The only facts we have is no skeletal remains of Homo Sapiens older than 20,000 years old have been discovered, whereas skeletal remains older than 20K years are bear similarities to homo sapiens, yet are different enough to be classified as a separate species. we also have the fact that the older the skeletal remains of hominids, the more differences are noted between those remains and homo sapiens.

This is true of many, many other modern species. Observed facts of skeletal remains are the facts. Tying them together into a picture of evolutionary processes over millions of years is theory. We have not once actually observed (as in found a FACT) of species differentiation occurring through evolutionary processes. Without that fact, or even testable hypothesis, ET is far less a proven concept than many would have you believe.

How it all happened, that's the theory or theories of evolution.

Again, not quite true. Many of the explanations of evolutionary theory have yet to be actually tested. They remain in the "educated guess" category. Frankly, science is still unsure WHAT happened as short a time as 1 million years ago (an eye blink in time), let alone HOW/WHY.

ID is not science. It is not a theory. It is not testable and is not based on any observable facts. It is religion.

Again, not quite true. ID has been very active in testing its central hypothesis. Yes, despite certain creationists hijacking ID for their own purposes, ID is actually a theory the structure of the universe is the result of intelligence and does have a testable hypothesis: the universe cannot be the end product of random events. The test for the hypothesis is developing a rigorous statistical analysis of whether certain observed phenomena (ie: facts) in the universe could have occured purely as a result of a sequence of random events. The process is quite similar to using statistics to show that a person who wins too often while gambling is cheating. If the universe had to "cheat" to arrive at the current state of being, then some other force (intelligence) must exist in order to change/guide the outcomes of random events.

So far the numbers overwhelmingly favor a non-random origin of the universe.

The type if ID that certain creationists tried to blow through the education system IS religion, but is NOT the real concept of ID. They hijacked the term because their own creationism attempt failed (and got caught at it thus simultaneously confusing the entire issue of ID.).

 

[Good Luck]

No, it does not. What is the origin of that intelligence?

This question presupposes that all forms of existence are limited to sequential time. The modern concept of the universe being composed of a minimum of 6 dimensions, L x W x H x Duration (time) x Tau (unknown) x Teh (unknown) We inhabit a portion of the universe in which we are subject to the first 4 dimensions. However, there could (highly likely according to the math) be objects/beings/whatever whose dimensions are W x L x H X Tau, for instance (or any other set of 4 dimensions out of 6). Those that do not include the dimension of duration would exist outside our concept of time entirely. From the standpoint of those of us limited to a sequential universe that does include the dimension of time,, such a object would have the appearance of infinite existence, with no origin, nor end.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,


Evolution can be tested as can theories of evolution. You can test it against the fossil record. If you could produce a static record you will have falsified evolution and all theories about it. You can test it against DNA. You could show a drastic difference between the DNA of other apes and humans, you would be able to falsify the idea that both evolved from a common ancestor. You could do some intelligent (in your case I use the term loosely) design.

The fact that reality won't let you falsify evolution does not mean it is not falsifiable or testable.

Evolution is not at question regarding the origination of life. How many times does that have to be pointed out here? It doesn't matter if you could PROVE evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt, it doesn't relate to origin of life! You can't "test against the fossil record" ...what the fuck does that even mean? You can test your theory, put the components necessary to form life in a vat, and see if life emerges randomly! I am betting it won't! Which proves, your theory that randomness is responsible for origination the life process, is invalid. Now....once life was intelligently created, it is possible that evolution took place, and you have a very nice theory with evidence to support just that sort of thing happening, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life originated in the first place.

Intelligent design is plausible because it offers an explanation for how all the millions of otherwise random things had to happen to create life. In our natural world, we have "laws of probability" and "laws of averages" ...these standards are based on our observation of everything in our natural known universe. Because of these principles, we know you can't roll the same number on the dice indefinitely, it defies the law of averages to do this. Eventually, if you roll the dice enough, you will roll a different number. These averages and probabilities are well documented, we can't state that it is a FACT it's possible to roll the dice 1 million times with the same result! Yet, to state that origin of life resulted through random events, this is precisely the argument you are presenting, and claiming it is a FACT, when it's far from it!

Now, is it "possible" the dice could be rolled 1 million times with the same result? Yes, but it's not very probable at all, it defies the laws of probability and averages, but it is still slightly possible that could happen. For all life to have coalesced on this planet in the precise manner as to interdependently rely on each other, in an environment so intricately balanced as to enable such life to grow and thrive in sufficient ratios, is an astronomical probability of randomness, it's borderline impossible. On this, you have based a theory, but it is no more valid than the theory we were intelligently designed, this planet was intelligently designed and custom made to provide an environment for the created life forms. You want a "test" for ID, it is the law of probability, the law of averages, common fucking sense!

 

[Cancel3]

Evolution is not at question regarding the origination of life. How many times does that have to be pointed out here? It doesn't matter if you could PROVE evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt, it doesn't relate to origin of life! You can't "test against the fossil record" ...what the fuck does that even mean? You can test your theory, put the components necessary to form life in a vat, and see if life emerges randomly! I am betting it won't! Which proves, your theory that randomness is responsible for origination the life process, is invalid. Now....once life was intelligently created, it is possible that evolution took place, and you have a very nice theory with evidence to support just that sort of thing happening, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how life originated in the first place.

Intelligent design is plausible because it offers an explanation for how all the millions of otherwise random things had to happen to create life. In our natural world, we have "laws of probability" and "laws of averages" ...these standards are based on our observation of everything in our natural known universe. Because of these principles, we know you can't roll the same number on the dice indefinitely, it defies the law of averages to do this. Eventually, if you roll the dice enough, you will roll a different number. These averages and probabilities are well documented, we can't state that it is a FACT it's possible to roll the dice 1 million times with the same result! Yet, to state that origin of life resulted through random events, this is precisely the argument you are presenting, and claiming it is a FACT, when it's far from it!

Now, is it "possible" the dice could be rolled 1 million times with the same result? Yes, but it's not very probable at all, it defies the laws of probability and averages, but it is still slightly possible that could happen. For all life to have coalesced on this planet in the precise manner as to interdependently rely on each other, in an environment so intricately balanced as to enable such life to grow and thrive in sufficient ratios, is an astronomical probability of randomness, it's borderline impossible. On this, you have based a theory, but it is no more valid than the theory we were intelligently designed, this planet was intelligently designed and custom made to provide an environment for the created life forms. You want a "test" for ID, it is the law of probability, the law of averages, common fucking sense!

Since the origin of life is not addressed by the theory of evolution, your rantings here are nonsense.

No matter how much you stomp and cry, ID is simply not science. And if it is not science, it should never be taught in a science class.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mottley, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall here.

How many times do we have to repeat that even the Pope has come out to say publicly that in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church there is no conflict between the biblical story of creation and evolution? As many of us have said several times, evolution does not address the origin of life.

As we have also said, creationism satisfies none of the criteria to classify it as a science.

You're right. I am beatnig my head to a degree. It frustrates me though that as a biologist to see soooooo many people who are utterly ignorant about the underpinings of this science cause some uninformed preacher or right wing idiots told them things which are not true.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Read slowly Mottley...and get the fuck off my case....

FACT: Theory is not fact....

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations.

Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established.

This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite.

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[3]. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence.

However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else.

For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

And don't credit me with what is solely YOUR post, as you did in # 92

Dude, you just made my case. You don't even know what a scientific theory is. You should go back and read Sol's post cause I'm telling you as a biologist with a graduate level education in the science that you don't know what the fuck your talking about and I just don't have the time right now to educate you on it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have no problem with believing the "theory" of evolution, nor do I see any conflict with my believing in a Supreme Being or God if I choose to do so....

What I have a problem with is closed-mined people that insist a theory is a fact....it isn't and thats that.....

Changing the definitions of words to suit you beliefs is the mark of a hack...be that a political hack or a scientific hack.....

A preponderance of evidence supports the theory, but it doesn't prove it to the absolute exclusion of all other explanations....

again, if you don't understand that the factual basis of a scientific theory then you just simply don't understand what a scientific theory is or how it is used by scientist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I
We evolved from some type of ape. That's a fact. How it all happened, that's the theory or theories of evolution.

I have to make a slight correction here. Evolutionary theory does not predict that modern man evolved from apes rather that we evolved from a common ancestor, i.e. common descent. It's this principle about evolutionary theory that the religious right finds most abhorrant.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Did you read what I posted? Did you even glance at the definitions for the wordsyou are spewing?

Let me help you again.

"Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."


A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observations.

Check what the definition of "theory" is again. After all these many years, the Theory of Evolution has not been disproven. In fact, there has been more documentation added to verifications.

Given the nature of what a theory is, and the subject of this particular theory, proving it as a "fact" is impossible. However, it is the only explanation that fits the scientific model.

ID does not, and never has, fit the scientific model. Therefore, it should never be taught in science class.

What you want to believe is up to you. But to claim that ID is science or that the theory of evolution is just a guess is being completely dishonest.

And Dixie, having graduated from a good university, I would think you (at least) would be capable of the rational thought necessary to see what I have said is true.

Sol, you can lead a horse to water but you can't lead a horticulture.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

When I say it is not a fact, I am not calling it into question. I am using the scientific terminology. And since it cannot be proven (indeed nothing in science can be proven), calling it a fact would be a misnomer.

Again I have to correct some terminology. All science is tentative. That is what makes it self correcting and workable. All facts must be "proven" to a certain degree of probability to be accepted as a fact. Gravity can, in principle be falsified. It is tentative but gravity is a proven fact to a very high degree of probability. Ditto for biological evolution.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Nonsense. Science does not necessarily try to prove facts. It tries to explain the how and why of facts. Theories are tested explanations of facts.

If facts and proof were impossible then science would be impossible and theory would be just as trivial as Dixie claims, because there could be no proof of a theory's falsity. All theories would be untestable.

I have to back up RS here Sol. He's right.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the structure of the universe is the result of intelligence[/b] and does have a testable hypothesis: the universe cannot be the end product of random events. The test for the hypothesis is developing a rigorous statistical analysis of whether certain observed phenomena (ie: facts) in the universe could have occured purely as a result of a sequence of random events. The process is quite similar to using statistics to show that a person who wins too often while gambling is cheating. If the universe had to "cheat" to arrive at the current state of being, then some other force (intelligence) must exist in order to change/guide the outcomes of random events.

So far the numbers overwhelmingly favor a non-random origin of the universe.

The type if ID that certain creationists tried to blow through the education system IS religion, but is NOT the real concept of ID. They hijacked the term because their own creationism attempt failed (and got caught at it thus simultaneously confusing the entire issue of ID.).

I have to challenge you on this. Where andwhat are these predictions ID makes? How have they been tested and where have those results been published in peer reviewed publications? If they have, who has independently verified the testing of those predictions? What natural behavior does ID model that makes it science? Where is this statistical model you claim exists?

As a biologist I am unaware of any answers to these questions. ID is at best a psuedoscience and at worst is religion disquising as science.

 

[Damocles]

I have no problem with believing the "theory" of evolution, nor do I see any conflict with my believing in a Supreme Being or God if I choose to do so....

What I have a problem with is closed-mined people that insist a theory is a fact....it isn't and thats that.....

Changing the definitions of words to suit you beliefs is the mark of a hack...be that a political hack or a scientific hack.....

A preponderance of evidence supports the theory, but it doesn't prove it to the absolute exclusion of all other explanations....

A scientific Theory is pretty much as close as you'll get with science. The supporting evidence needed to get to that level makes it extremely rare to be proven wrong.

A Theory, in science, isn't a big ol' guess with nothing supporting it. Even a Hypothesis isn't that.

 

[Damocles]

Since the origin of life is not addressed by the theory of evolution, your rantings here are nonsense.

No matter how much you stomp and cry, ID is simply not science. And if it is not science, it should never be taught in a science class.

Thanks for playing.

Which doesn't mean it isn't true, only that it cannot fit the criteria for even a hypothesis, it isn't testable.

If God sets the laws of the universe and thus intelligently designs it, all science would be is the ability to observe and test to find out what all those laws are. God or Not God cannot be answered by science in any manner.

 

[Timshel]

GL,

I tire of having to define every term to every different participant.

An observed fact is something known through observation. A theory is a notion not verifiable through observation, that has been tested and to date, not falsified.

An apple falling to the earth is an observed fact. The prediction that it will happen might be a test of several theories. But it is going to happen, without some present condition consistent with gravity. It's good enough to be considered fact. You can waste your time considering the possibilities if you like. It does not make you scientific. It makes you a dumbass.

We have certainly observed evolution. Some will argue we have observed speciation, I won't bother because it is too dependent on another definition and zzZZzz.

The main argument against evolution and for ID by tards like Dixie is that it does not explain origins. But ID does not answer the question any better. Your response has nothing to do with ID.

Dixie,

We can test evolution against the fossil record. If there were no variation in the fossil record that would falsify evolution and all theories concerning it. Fuck, you are dumb.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Which doesn't mean it isn't true, only that it cannot fit the criteria for even a hypothesis, it isn't testable.

If God sets the laws of the universe and thus intelligently designs it, all science would be is the ability to observe and test to find out what all those laws are. God or Not God cannot be answered by science in any manner.

This is true but science has nothing to say on this topic as it is completely outside the scope of science. There are many mysteries in this universe that science cannot explain. Science is intended only to model the natural world.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

GL,

I tire of having to define every term to every different participant.

An observed fact is something known through observation. A theory is a notion not verifiable through observation, that has been tested and to date, not falsified.

An apple falling to the earth is an observed fact. The prediction that it will happen might be a test of several theories. But it is going to happen, without some present condition consistent with gravity. It's good enough to be considered fact. You can waste your time considering the possibilities if you like. It does not make you scientific. It makes you a dumbass.

We have certainly observed evolution. Some will argue we have observed speciation, I won't bother because it is too dependent on another definition and zzZZzz.

The main argument against evolution and for ID by tards like Dixie is that it does not explain origins. But ID does not answer the question any better. Your response has nothing to do with ID.

Dixie,

We can test evolution against the fossil record. If there were no variation in the fossil record that would falsify evolution and all theories concerning it. Fuck, you are dumb.

Yea and lets not forget the fact that biological evolution was never intended to model or explain the origins of life.

What's upsetting to me about this issue is not only the ignorance about evolutionary theory but the false paradigm by those on the religeous right that one cannot beleive in evolution as science and still be a Christian. If it's not specifically stated it's most certainly implied.

 

[NOVA]

Yea and lets not forget the fact that biological evolution was never intended to model or explain the origins of life.

What's upsetting to me about this issue is not only the ignorance about evolutionary theory but the false paradigm by those on the religeous right that one cannot beleive in evolution as science and still be a Christian. If it's not specifically stated it's most certainly implied.

Bullshit....Its been SPECIFICALLY stated in plain English in a number of posts that one can certainly believe in God, be a Christian and believe in the process of evolution, as many scientists, priests, rabbis, and ministers do....

If you'd shut your pie hole and read whats posted you would be aware of that...
Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive beliefs....