Do you accept evolution as fact? Yes/No?

[wchou]

It's time to evolve again!

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: gflores
Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct?

"Evolution" is not a theory, but merely a statement that "life on Earth changed over time". The theory is "Natural Selection". And yes, Natural Selection does NOT seek to explain how life on Earth originated.

That is completely, completely incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY. Natural Selection (aka Darwin...) as a theory on its own has been proven to be FALSE.

Currently, Natural Selection is only a part of evolutionary theory. Natural Selection needs things like the founder effect, genetic drift, etc. to come even remotely close to what we observe.

It looks like you support the theory of evolution, but you're really helping the creationists by calling it Natural Selection. That's how creationists attack evolution - they go after Natural Selection in the words of Darwin, and there are many, many things that Darwin got wrong. You're giving them the perfect Straw Man. I suggest you read a little bit more about the theory of evolution.

 

[slash196]

Why does it seem that everyone in this topic thinks they understand evolution, but no one actually does?

 

[petrek]

Because there are numerous ways to define the word evolution as is clearly, and factually noted by simply looking in the various dictionaries available both on and offline.
As such, evolution is both a fact and a theory because online and offline dictionary definitions of the term evolution refer to both the factual and theoretical views and ideologies associated with the term evolution.

 

[wchou]

creationism is very emotional and is not based on facts rather teaches you to feel but often goes beyond reality such as hell and heaven
one cannot experience pain after death but only before death and after birth

Nuff

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: slash196
Why does it seem that everyone in this topic thinks they understand evolution, but no one actually does?

I do!

Evolution in it's extreme is; if someone was born with 4 arms (wish it were me) and that just made that person better to do combat and made sure he survived. The he got this hot broad, and the chances his children had 4 arms were significantly higher. Then the same happens to his children and so on. It's not hard, it's very simple.

This ofcourse is the extreme. The normal change would be something like happened to the girafs or something. They grew bigger and bigger.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: gflores
Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct?

"Evolution" is not a theory, but merely a statement that "life on Earth changed over time". The theory is "Natural Selection". And yes, Natural Selection does NOT seek to explain how life on Earth originated.

That is completely, completely incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY. Natural Selection (aka Darwin...) as a theory on its own has been proven to be FALSE.

Currently, Natural Selection is only a part of evolutionary theory. Natural Selection needs things like the founder effect, genetic drift, etc. to come even remotely close to what we observe.

It looks like you support the theory of evolution, but you're really helping the creationists by calling it Natural Selection. That's how creationists attack evolution - they go after Natural Selection in the words of Darwin, and there are many, many things that Darwin got wrong. You're giving them the perfect Straw Man. I suggest you read a little bit more about the theory of evolution.

I was distinguishing the concept of "evolution" (the fact the life has changed over the eons, which is an undisputable fact, even for those who claim that "eons" means 5000 years) with the particular theory of evolutionary biology believed by contemporary biologists. Historically, there have been other theories of evolution, for example, Lamarckian evolution, that are now discredited. So to speak of "evolution" is not very precise. It's important to mention the mechanism underlying the evolutionary process in order be accurate in referring to a theory. Thus, "Evolution via Natural Selection" is a theory. "Evolution" is not.

You are incorrect in saying that "Natural Selection has been disproved". Natural selection is still believed to explain at least some biological evolution (for example, Sickle Cell disease in humans). You are correct, however, if your point is that Natural Selection is no longer believed to be the dominant mechanism that drives evolution; genetic drift now holds that distinction.

As to creating an easily challenged straw man, I think it's pretty easy to argue against Creationist pap, whatever component of evolutionary theory is being challeged. For example, here is an excerpt from www.talkorigins.org (an excellent resource for explaining biological evolution and providing counterarguments to Creationish claims) that addresses the rhetorical device (the "argument from incredulity") used by Creationists when they bring up "irreducible complexity" as not being explainable by Natural Selection:

"The argument from incredulity ["It is inconceivable that (xyz) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created."] creates a "god of the gaps". Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: gflores
Just a quickie question. So, evolution does not attempt to show how life came to this earth, correct?

"Evolution" is not a theory, but merely a statement that "life on Earth changed over time". The theory is "Natural Selection". And yes, Natural Selection does NOT seek to explain how life on Earth originated.

That is completely, completely incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY. Natural Selection (aka Darwin...) as a theory on its own has been proven to be FALSE.

Currently, Natural Selection is only a part of evolutionary theory. Natural Selection needs things like the founder effect, genetic drift, etc. to come even remotely close to what we observe.

It looks like you support the theory of evolution, but you're really helping the creationists by calling it Natural Selection. That's how creationists attack evolution - they go after Natural Selection in the words of Darwin, and there are many, many things that Darwin got wrong. You're giving them the perfect Straw Man. I suggest you read a little bit more about the theory of evolution.

I was distinguishing the concept of "evolution" (the fact the life has changed over the eons, which is an undisputable fact, even for those who claim that "eons" means 5000 years) with the particular theory of evolutionary biology believed by contemporary biologists. Historically, there have been other theories of evolution, for example, Lamarckian evolution, that are now discredited. So to speak of "evolution" is not very precise. It's important to mention the mechanism underlying the evolutionary process in order be accurate in referring to a theory. Thus, "Evolution via Natural Selection" is a theory. "Evolution" is not.

You are incorrect in saying that "Natural Selection has been disproved". Natural selection is still believed to explain at least some biological evolution (for example, Sickle Cell disease in humans). You are correct, however, if your point is that Natural Selection is no longer believed to be the dominant mechanism that drives evolution; genetic drift now holds that distinction.

Your response is fine with me. However, next time you quote me, please quote my actual words, so you don't distort what I write. I never wrote these words: "Natural Selection has been disproved". Nor did I write anything to the effect of those words.

You wrote, "The theory is 'Natural Selection'." (<-------correct use of quotation), which is completely false. I wrote, "Natural Selection (aka Darwin...) as a theory on its own has been proven to be FALSE", and you now agree with this statement.

As to creating an easily challenged straw man, I think it's pretty easy to argue against Creationist pap, whatever component of evolutionary theory is being challeged. For example, here is an excerpt from www.talkorigins.org (an excellent resource for explaining biological evolution and providing counterarguments to Creationish claims) that addresses the rhetorical device (the "argument from incredulity") used by Creationists when they bring up "irreducible complexity" as not being explainable by Natural Selection:


"The argument from incredulity ["It is inconceivable that (xyz) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created."] creates a "god of the gaps". Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

It's much more difficult if you start by saying that the theory is natural selection.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Your response is fine with me. However, next time you quote me, please quote my actual words, so you don't distort what I write. I never wrote these words: "Natural Selection has been disproved". Nor did I write anything to the effect of those words.

You wrote, "The theory is 'Natural Selection'." (<-------correct use of quotation), which is completely false. I wrote, "Natural Selection (aka Darwin...) as a theory on its own has been proven to be FALSE", and you now agree with this statement.

I thought that what you meant by "as a theory on it's own has been proven to be false" was that NS had been proven false. I see now that what you actually meant is that Natural Selection is considered to be only one of the mechanisms for evolution. I agree.

It's much more difficult if you start by saying that the theory is natural selection.

I guess so. But what IS the best name? "Evolution" or "Theory of Evolution" don't refer to any particular mechanism, and the actual theoretical framework changes over time, especially since the extent of the roles play by NS and GD are still being debated.

 

[wchou]

DO you believe bad luck is caused by where you live? Do you believe good luck is caused by where you live? Some people, infact most believe that if they move to a different location they will have better luck in business
some stupid superstitution right their for ya, some humans evolve at a slower rate then others
We are not all equal in intellectual
I would be quite angry if god created us defective as an experimental
What is god? a 3rd person perspective, an illusion, wishful thoughts that are used to instill fear and confusion among the rest of the unsecured population
Most follow the same pattern over and over again to try and get a different result
To say we are born out of nothing is a far fetch from reality
last, I know everything including when I'm going to die and that maybe tomorrow or today, but I don't care. death is only the beginning of a new life
Make sense?

I know I don't but who cares???

 

[I800C0LECT]

 

[I800C0LECT]

"creationism is very emotional and is not based on facts rather teaches you to feel but often goes beyond reality such as hell and heaven
one cannot experience pain after death but only before death and after birth

Nuff " -wchou




hrmmm. I think this goes back to tangible vs. intangible....

Do you believe people are less inclined to have a higher IQ because they place faith in the intangible?

We will never know the truth definitively....only subjectively....that's why we are not omnipotent beings.

Ultimately you MUST find faith in the intangible (science, religion....something) unless you don't really care You're version of the truth might be found through arguments made scientifically. Although logical at times, they do not have proof to pinpoint all variables within their logic.

Who says nothing happens after we die anyways?...science?



www.dictionary.com

science:
1a) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

4) Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.