Evolution

[Rastafari]

Given that our lovely president doesn't think that evolution has occured, it would be curious to poll the conservatives here (and all others who oppose knowledge) and see what they think and their main arguements for or against it. Personally, I don't see how the theory can be refuted at this point, as it has been proven in the field numerous times (The Beak of the Finch, for example). The revolution of the Earth on its axis and around our sun was opposed for the longest time, however, and now even the stallwart Catholic church (which is less obnoxious than even other institutions) has accepted it as fact and modified their central body of knowlege around it.

Oh, and Che-Lives members (the normal type, that is; those fiery young liberals, that brooding and idealist Intelligentsia), feel free to prove it wrong as well. I know at least a few of you who are pretty "set back" in your ways, proverbially speaking.

I suppose that if all of the conservatives are more intelligent than I am crediting them with, we can discuss breeding pidgeons or something Darwin would have found interesting. Or maybe the details of his sickness in South America (which I think was caused by an Assassin or Wheel Bug, but oh well). I guess we could move it to the Science/Environment thread at that point, just for a lack of decent topics over there.

[ComradeRed]

yeah! my fav subject, the field of evolutionary biological sciences!!! this'll be a breaze

[Rastafari]

So, what about those assassin bugs and that very hard-to-transmit disease they carry which may or may not be the reason that Darwin couldn't stay?

[hazard]

you people are complete idiots

considering evolution requires billions upon billions of years to occur, it can never be proven to exist under the most obvious of scientific principles. verification. what kind of a scientist can even pretend to believe in the least believable of theories is perposterous. complete and utter ridiculous nonsense.

under evolution, only GOD could verify whether or not evolution is scientifically provable. which in turn would prove that such an entity exists. otherwise, the THEORY of evolution holds just as much weight as any other theory, and anything that is thoeretical is, by definition, NOT SCIENTIFIC.

[SonofRage]

thanks hazard, people need to understand that important point you just made and I'm glad someone made it

[Vinny Rafarino]

considering evolution requires billions upon billions of years to occur, it can never be proven to exist under the most obvious of scientific principles. verification. what kind of a scientist can even pretend to believe in the least believable of theories is perposterous. complete and utter ridiculous nonsense.



I do not know where you went to University Mr. Hazard but evolutionary theory was proven some time ago. I recommend you read Darwins study of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Beak size in relation to the shell strength of local varieties of nuts indeed has DOCUMENTED PROOF. This does not even account for fossil records of other species throughout the world.

Good grief son, do your homework.


under evolution, only GOD could verify whether or not evolution is scientifically provable

So you would feel that "god" is a more reliable source of scientific data?

Forgetabout it son, don't bother to go back to school, I recommend the Seminary.

[SonofRage]

A scientific theory stands until it is proven wrong, it is never proven correct. That is the way theories work in science. What COMRADE RAF is referring to is evidence of the theory's validity, it is not proof.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

we evolved from monkies :blink: :rolleyes:

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:52 PM
we evolved from monkies :blink: :rolleyes:
No, we share a common ancestor with other primates. (and according to some wierd theory my older sister learned in her university program, perhaps dolphins aswell.)

[MysticArcher]

darn, someone beat me to it

so, yeah it's a common misconception, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved form an ancestor that is common to both humans and monkeys

anyway, evolution doesn't actually take all that long, just look at bacteria, a population of bacteria can evolve to be anti biotic resistant in a few hours

"under evolution, only GOD could verify whether or not evolution is scientifically provable"
I don't know, all those fossils of species that no longer exist that date back from a time older than what the Bible says should be the age of the earth certainly seems to be proof

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:41 PM
A scientific theory stands until it is proven wrong, it is never proven correct. That is the way theories work in science. What COMRADE RAF is referring to is evidence of the theory's validity, it is not proof.
indeed, the hyperthetico-deductus method is the one used in science so hazard's ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is not scientific is incorrect.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What COMRADE RAF is referring to is evidence of the theory's validity, it is not proof.



Not exactly. A "theory" is is an affirmation that has no physical evidence to support it. For example. Einsteins's "theory" of general relativity was only "theory" until the trajectory of cosmic masses was charted correctly throughout it's orbital path around large masses using Einsteins equations.

That is what is referred to as empirical evidence to support a "theory", thus the theory is now proven to be scientific "fact".

Darwin's "theory" of evolutionary science was supported with factual documentation of genetic evolution based on environmental stimuli. As in the case of general relativity, this "theory" is now scientific fact.

Just because those whom are blinded by their "religious beliefs" deny this fact does not make your affirmations any more credible than those of the "evangelical persuasion".

To put in bluntly, you are wrong.




so, yeah it's a common misconception, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved form an ancestor that is common to both humans and monkeys



Not exactly. All life as we know share identical DNA sequences, somewhere around 85% to be more precise. These "standard" DNA sequences make up the building block of life. The remaining 15% or so make up the differences in what we consider to be different "species" of life.

What makes a life form categorised within a specific species is the sharing of common DNA sequences that are "specific" to those life forms only.

For example, humans are considered primates because we share "specific" DNA sequences only found in other primates. This evidence along with fossil evidence is all that is needed to determine that humans did indeed evolve from lower forms of primates.

Those who deny this fact only succeed in embarrassing themselves. Perhaps they would be more suited to go bowling with Jim Baker rather than discuss this topic.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 01:08 PM

What COMRADE RAF is referring to is evidence of the theory's validity, it is not proof.



Not exactly. A "theory" is is an affirmation that has no physical evidence to support it. For example. Einsteins's "theory" of general relativity was only "theory" until the trajectory of cosmic masses was charted correctly throughout it's orbital path around large masses using Einsteins equations.

That is what is referred to as empirical evidence to support a "theory", thus the theory is now proven to be scientific "fact".

Darwin's "theory" of evolutionary science was supported with factual documentation of genetic evolution based on environmental stimuli. As in the case of general relativity, this "theory" is now scientific fact.

Just because those whom are blinded by their "religious beliefs" deny this fact does not make your affirmations any more credible than those of the "evangelical persuasion".

To put in bluntly, you are wrong.
I purposely used a definition of what a scientific theory is out of a textbook to show that you are talking out of your ass. Good job guy.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Please, prove me wrong son.

If you do, you should win the "nobel prize" for changing how the world views logic and relity. I think Tim Leary tried something like that in the 60's, however it was later found that he was just high.


I'm sorry you feel that I have attacked you, but I have to tell you, that when you are blatently wrong I will let you know.

It's unfortunate that your feelings were hurt but at least you can say that you learned something.

[Exploited Class]

One of the most common accusations heard from creationists is that "evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven". Such assertions are also heard from conservatives who give political support to the creationists. For instance, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution, "Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."

This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. The distinction between these is important in understanding and in countering creationist arguments, since the word "theory" also has a popular usage that is quite different from its scientific meaning (the vast majority of the US population--some studies have indicated as high as 95%--are in essence scientifically illiterate, and have only the vaguest grasp of modern scientific thinking, and the creationists always make a point of appealing to this popular ignorance).

In the popular view, the word "theory" means simply something that is unproven--an assertion which may or may not be true. It is this meaning which the creationists refer to when they assert that evolution is "just a theory", the implication being that, if evolution hasn't been proven, then it should have no more standing than creation "science". In science, however, the word "theory" has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data. This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say "theory").

Once a hypothesis has been formed, it is compared against the data (both old and new) to see how well it fits with the established facts. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, then it must be either modified and tested again, or discarded completely and a new hypothesis formed. Once a hypothesis has passed the test of verification through data, it becomes a scientific theory--i.e., it becomes an established framework within which to interpret the relationship of various bits of raw data. On the basis of this theory, new hypotheses are formed, and areas in which new data may be gathered are identified. If the theory continues to correctly explain new data (and indeed serves to correctly predict the outcome of scientific experiments), it is said to have a high degree of reliability. Such a theory is not a mere supposition or guess; it is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability.

When a related group of theories are correlated to one another and demonstrate the ability to be predictive and to explain the An example may help to illustrate these distinctions. Observational data indicates to us that we can see the masts of tall ships while they are still far out on the horizon, before we can see the deck or the hull. We can also observe that the shadow of the earth, cast upon the moon during a rare eclipse, appears to be circular. We can therefore formulate the hypothesis that the earth is round. This would explain all of our data. Using this hypothesis, we can predict that, if the earth is indeed a sphere, we should be able to sail completely around the earth without falling off or coming to an edge. And, if this experiment is performed, we find that we can indeed do so. data, they form a scientific model. Models are the intellectual framework within which vast areas of particular data are explained and described. They also serve to indicate potential new areas of research and new hypotheses which can be tested to see if they can be integrated into the model.

Our hypothesis has now been verified by experimentation, shows itself capable of correlating a variety of disparate data, and shows an ability to be predictive, and is therefore established as a scientific theory, the Theory of the Round Earth.

If we combine our theory of the round earth with other theories such as the theory of a round moon and a theory of heliocentrism, we can formulate a model--the moon orbits around the earth, the earth orbits around the sun, and all are part of a system of planets orbiting around a central star. This is the model of the heliocentric solar system.

Please note that none of this is to be treated as an absolute fact. It is entirely possible that some later observation or data will completely upset our model.

[Exploited Class]

Evolution has been scientifically proven within a short period of time. All it took was fruit flies with have a short life span, create numerous off spring to allow for genetic mutations and then a breeding of that genetic mutation.

All evolution says is this, in its most basic form possible. "Offspring can have genetic mutations" which we all know to be true because we have seen people and animals that have slight differences from their parents.

Secondly, that these genetic mutations can be passed on. Which we know because we all have seen mothers and fathers that have to wear glasses and their children also wear glasses. Same thing with hair color and such. I doubt anybody here is going to deny that genes are not inherited.

Thirdly, that a genetic mutation will only become 'popular' if the following is true,
1. That it somehow helps in procreating the species.
2. Helps the survivability period of that species that has developed the genetic mutation.

So the genetic mutation has to benefit in generally 2 ways, and those 2 ways of course can be broken down in other ways. Like if with Rams, who fight first with other male rams prior to being able to re-procreate. If your genetic mutation allows you to 'win re-procreation rights' with a mate, then it will be passed on.

If your genetic mutation makes you more pleasant to reproduce with, (like the colors of feathers on a bird) then you have a better chance of passing your mutation, (more pleasant or more colors than your competitors.)

Your survivability timeframe increasing can be camouflage, like the stripes on a tiger to blend in with the grass you are hunting in, you survive longer because you can eat more because camouflage allows you to get closer to prey.

Prey surviving the attack might have had a genetic mutation of better eye site or better hearing and therefore survive to pass that gene on while others who did not have that genetic mutations are killed.

You can apply the evolutionary theory to pretty much every species. It is a matter on our part to be able to recognize and analyze the species at hand and see how the mutations benefit that species. If we do not 'pay attention' or have a lack of understanding on our part we can not see the benefits. There has been many times in our own recent history that we viewed animals and thought, "The evolutionary theory" does not fit with this species traits. It wasn't until closer examination that we figured out that, yes indeed this species does benefit from a genetic mutation that passes on and does indeed fit the evolutionary theory.

I often find that people that do not have the scientific mind or the analytical mind speak on the truths of scientific models, much like a bike repairman might speak on space shuttle engine repair methods, using only a percentage of trained information to speak on larger models that they do not understand and can not comprehend and destroy the model because of their own inabilities and limitations. The model was not broken, only their lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject matter was.

Bike repairmen should not give instructions on how to repair the engines of the space shuttle.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 01:35 PM
Please, prove me wrong son.

If you do, you should win the "nobel prize" for changing how the world views logic and relity. I think Tim Leary tried something like that in the 60's, however it was later found that he was just high.


I'm sorry you feel that I have attacked you, but I have to tell you, that when you are blatently wrong I will let you know.

It's unfortunate that your feelings were hurt but at least you can say that you learned something.

Read and learn:




Further explanation of a scientific theory

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[Exploited Class]

In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know.

Right so do this instead, when you see theory, realize that it is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% true but not absolute. The not being absolute comes from a small part of ourselves and our phylosphy that we can never be sure of anything and in fact shouldn't be. We should always be trying to find the flaws with our theories, in trying to find the flaws we will in fact strenghten a theory.

If you hang on to that .000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the theory is not true, you might as well not believe the in the theory of the Earth being round. Because in fact the earth being round is still a 99.999999999999999999999% true and is still a theory. Sure a theory that we live by because it makes the most sense, doesn't get argued against by religions and has been around for several hundred years. There are many things that strenghten the fact that the earth is round 99.999999999999999999999% probably true, but it is still a theory.

In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know.

If you don't accept the 99.9999999999999999999999% truality of evolution and decide to instead live in the 00.0000000000000000001% realm, then I suggest to you that you should not believe in anything being fact. Do not assume that the earth revolves around the sun, there is only 99.999999999999999999999999999% chance that it does. Do not believe that there is actually gravity, sure you might have evidence that proves it does, but you can not trust that, you live in that .000000000000000000000000000001% realm. Evidence proving that gravity exists over and over and over does not apply to you. You do not trust any theories. Because you live in this world

In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know.

[SonofRage]

The point, which everyone seems to be either failing to understand or are just ignoring, is that scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. Since it is a theory, by definition is has not been proven.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:39 PM
The point, which everyone seems to be either failing to understand or are just ignoring, is that scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. Since it is a theory, by definition is has not been proven.
Not proven, but disproved.

[BuyOurEverything]

The point, which everyone seems to be either failing to understand or are just ignoring, is that scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. Since it is a theory, by definition is has not been proven.

But what's your point? If you're going to wait for something to be absolutely proven before you believe it, you might as well not eat because it hasn't been proven the humans need food to survive, it's just been demonstrated billions of times.

[SonofRage]

I'd like you to point out where I said that I didn't believe in evolution. What's my point you ask? I just said what my point was!! Read it again!

The point, which everyone seems to be either failing to understand or are just ignoring, is that scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. Since it is a theory, by definition is has not been proven.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Read and learn:

:lol:

Thanks kid, I will keep that noted.




I see logic means nothing here....


Get that pulitzer ready!

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2004, 07:08 PM
Not exactly. A "theory" is is an affirmation that has no physical evidence to support it. For example. Einsteins's "theory" of general relativity was only "theory" until the trajectory of cosmic masses was charted correctly throughout it's orbital path around large masses using Einsteins equations.

That is what is referred to as empirical evidence to support a "theory", thus the theory is now proven to be scientific "fact".
Actually, everything is a theory. Nothing can ever be proven completly true.


Back in the 1400s, it was scientific "fact" that you could not reach india by sailing west. Colombus disproved that.
It was scientific "fact" that observations cannot change the results of the experiment. Young disproved that.
It was scientific "fact" that momentum and energy are always conserved. Yukawa disproved that.


All of science is simply trying to find a theory a little closer to the truth.

[Bradyman]

All of science is simply trying to find a theory a little closer to the truth.


Yeah and it appears as if it's gotten closer to the truth with evolution. What sounds more reasonable: some Being that created a whole bunch of plants and animals in the span of 7 days OR the natural progression of organisms through evolution that is backed by credible evidence?

Prehaps evolution is not the entire truth, but it sure is a lot closer than creationism.

[Pete]

Back in the 1400s, it was scientific "fact" that you could not reach india by sailing west. Colombus disproved that.

No he didn't. He proved that there was atleast a bunch of little islands with people in funny clothies speaking wierd langauges (to the european) over the Western ocean.

[Guest1]

For those of you who don't like how harsh RAF is, please read his title :P

And no, there's nothing wrong with it RAF, we love you as you are :)

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Exploited Class+Jan 21 2004, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Exploited Class @ Jan 21 2004, 06:52 PM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 03:39 PM
The point, which everyone seems to be either failing to understand or are just ignoring, is that scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory. Since it is a theory, by definition is has not been proven.
Not proven, but disproved. [/b]
I&#39;ve been meaning to start a "Popperian Epistomology" thread, but never got around to it...


anyway, what I&#39;d really like to see is a real arguement against it (Save that Bill Folley talk about finding a watch in a heath...you know? It was used before Evolution and ol&#39; Jerry Falwell is still using it), and not simple name-calling and so forth. I would suggest (not taking sides here) that noone argue with RAF unless you have at least 3 proofs/evidences of his fallability. We&#39;ve all tried to "fuck with the jedi master," as it were (because there are about 5 people here who live and die by knowledge), and 90% have come away badly burnt.

I&#39;d like to hear some more from the rev. Hazard, as he sounded like he knew how to start a real arguement.
I don&#39;t know where this is going, but does anyone want to talk about Assassin Bugs? I mean, anything that can prey on a footlong Centipede (Haha Drake...) wins in my book.
I wonder how common Chagas&#39; Disease is?

Chagas disease currently affects 16-18 million people, killing around 20,000 annually and with some 100 million at risk of acquiring the disease
(From Wikipedia)

interesting...
I didn&#39;t even know about it being so widespread...



http://entomologia.net/dicciona/triato.jpg

[Guest1]

I would suggest (not taking sides here) that noone argue with RAF unless you have at least 3 proofs/evidences of his fallability. We&#39;ve all tried to "fuck with the jedi master," as it were (because there are about 5 people here who live and die by knowledge), and 90% have come away badly burnt.

:lol:

[hazard]

SOR is really close to nailing the falsification argument against evolution.

what it comes down to is that evolution sets itself up so that NOTHING counts against its theory. thats why it can neither be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. its so unscientific its hilarious.

really, what kind of complete moron would believe this?

there is MORE validity in ASTROLOGY and PSYCHOLOGY as there is in ALL of BIOLOGY.

at least astrology and biology don&#39;t pretend to be sciences.

[BuyOurEverything]

what it comes down to is that evolution sets itself up so that NOTHING counts against its theory. thats why it can neither be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. its so unscientific its hilarious.


How is it unscientific?


really, what kind of complete moron would believe this?


Believe in evolution? The vast majority of scientists, for one.


there is MORE validity in ASTROLOGY and PSYCHOLOGY as there is in ALL of BIOLOGY.


There is no validity in astrology. There is in psychology and biology however.


at least astrology and biology don&#39;t pretend to be sciences.

Actually biology is a science. I think you meant to say psychology though, which also is a science.

[synthesis]

Astrology is superstition. Astronomy actually is a science.

Just for clarification to hazard :)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Actually, everything is a theory. Nothing can ever be proven completly true.



You cats are a hoot.


Everything is a "theory".....right....





The tree is made out of wood. Use your noodle kiddo&#33;

[Urban Rubble]

The tree is made out of wood.

You can&#39;t prove that. It&#39;s only a theory. I am fairly certain that trees are made out of God&#39;s fingernail clippings, painted brown of course. :lol:

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22 2004, 08:42 PM
The tree is made out of wood. Use your noodle kiddo&#33;
Thats incorrect and not scientific. Trees are made of wood, leaves and some other stuff. Thats also circular logic.

The tree is made out of wood.

Whats wood?

Wood is what trees are made of.

What are tree made of?

Wood.

Ad nauseam.

[John Galt]

Notice that almost nothing since newton is called a law.


Its the THEORY of relativity, superstring THEORY, quantum THEORY, the THEORY of gravitation, the big bang THEORY.

[ComradeRed]

:rolleyes: key word ALMOST, there is the catastrophe theory, which proves evolution correct, there is the evolution theory, and creationism. creationism is bull. evolution, once one reads books on it, it is begins to unravel, it&#39;s fascinating and ingenious, in my opinion; however, it requires different environment to begin, which cannot be proven, hence why it is a theory. catastrophe is where a rock containing life came to earth and started life, because life was on it or something, im not too clear on it.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:05 AM
what it comes down to is that evolution sets itself up so that NOTHING counts against its theory. thats why it can neither be PROVEN or DISPROVEN. its so unscientific its hilarious.
The overzealousness of some of those who believe in a theory does not reflect upon the validity of the theory.

Besides, a creationist accusing evolutionists of ignoring all contradictory evidence?

hah&#33; that&#39;s rich :lol:

[Rastafari]

Popper (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559757/Karl_Popper.html)

wood is secondary growth tissue


what, dear Hazard, do you define as a "Science?"
Something that further proves the existence of Jesus, maybe?

[LSD]

Evolution is the best theory presented so far, it explains more than any other competing theory. Therefore it is the accepted theory

That&#39;s how science works.


If someone comes up with a better theory tommorrow than evolution will be thrown out or ammended.

(Look at how Newtonian theories were modified to take into account Einstein&#39;s theories)


Notice that no one argues that we cannot accept gravity because it&#39;s only a theory. But if something contradicts the bible, BOOM you get protests.

If anythings shows what&#39;s wrong with dogmatic relgions....

[Vinny Rafarino]

Thats incorrect and not scientific. Trees are made of wood, leaves and some other stuff. Thats also circular logic.

The tree is made out of wood.

Whats wood?

Wood is what trees are made of.

What are tree made of?

Wood.

Ad nauseam.

:lol:




Its the THEORY of relativity

And General Relativity has been proven through observation. Period. It is a "theory" in name only. You cats have a hard time with this stuff...It&#39;s pretty funny.

Prove it wrong mate.

[LSD]

And General Relativity has been proven through observation.

look.....no theory is ever proven in science, it can only be supported.

If something is "proven" it means it is absolutely completely correct, and we can never fully know that.

Remember that for centuries Newton&#39;s gravitation theory was supported by every observation.

But it wasn&#39;t proven, and, as it turns out, it also wasn&#39;t correct.


So evolution is supported and it is the best explanation we&#39;ve got, but it can never be proven.


Prove it wrong mate.


You&#39;re not wrong, just misinformed.

[Vinny Rafarino]

look.....no theory is ever proven in science, it can only be supported.

If something is "proven" it means it is absolutely completely correct, and we can never fully know that.

Remember that for centuries Newton&#39;s gravitation theory was supported by every observation.

But it wasn&#39;t proven, and, as it turns out, it also wasn&#39;t correct.


So evolution is supported and it is the best explanation we&#39;ve got, but it can never be proven

Good grief, none of you can grasp this.


LOOK.....forgetabout it son.

[Exploited Class]

I think what has happened here is some people are putting more weight or stock into the word Theory than is deserved.

Some of this is arguing for the sake of arguing.

I am not even sure if they are still calling it a "Theory" anymore. To prove it true, 100% without a doubt, no chance for a mess up, one would need a time machine. Same goes for the Plate Techtonic Theory. You would need a time machine to go back to when there was a Pangea on the earth and watch it all break apart and move away. Even though there isn&#39;t any other evidence or proof that would support otherwise.

The term theory being attached to Evolution is a technicality and doesn&#39;t deserve anymore weight than that.

Anybody that would use that as an excuse to not believe in Evolution is being a fool. There might be other reasons that are much more valid (not saying are or are not valid) than saying, "Because it is still a theory".
Remember there is only 1 evolutionary theory out there, there are several hundred different religions out there.

I would like to see evidence of this statement however.

what it comes down to is that evolution sets itself up so that NOTHING counts against its theory.

Because really having a "God" do the creating, sets itself up that nothing counts against it.

Well if the earth is only 7000 years old, why is there dinosaurs.

"Because god wanted it that way" "God has a plan that you can&#39;t understand." "You have to have faith"

so Everybody came from 2 people, adam and eve, so why wasn&#39;t there any chromosome damage?
"God made it so they wouldn&#39;t have problems with that. He can do anything, he is god."

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think what has happened here is some people are putting more weight or stock into the word Theory than is deserved


Finally&#33; Thank you EC....





You&#39;re not wrong, just misinformed.


Damn...5 years of grad school down the drain.....

I will keep your observation noted brutha...

[Rastafari]

Damn...5 years of grad school down the drain.....

I will keep your observation noted brutha...

Elitist Scum&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Xprewatik RED]

I did not read the whole post so I dont know if this has been said but I&#39;ll say it anyways. Evolution is documented and proven. All of you are looking at the Animal Kingdom. Look at Bacteria for example evolution occurs at an extremley fast rate. New ones are born for example that are immune to certain anti-biotics. Or a new strain of bacteria that develops to counter a new protista predetor.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 23 2004, 06:46 PM
LOOK.....forgetabout it son.
You dont seem to get that any experiment can never be absolutely proven to be correct. The mere act of observing the experiment can change the results. If you have taken any statistics, no experiment can have a P-value of 100. The range of possible P values is 0 < X <100. Note the lack of the greater than [b]or equal to[b] sign.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I will keep that noted as well. Grazi rompipalle&#33;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 24 2004, 01:56 AM
Grazi rompipalle&#33;
Same to you

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:02 AM
you people are complete idiots

considering evolution requires billions upon billions of years to occur, it can never be proven to exist under the most obvious of scientific principles. verification. complete and utter ridiculous nonsense.

under evolution, only GOD could verify whether or not evolution is scientifically provable. which in turn would prove that such an entity exists. otherwise, the THEORY of evolution holds just as much weight as any other theory, and anything that is thoeretical is, by definition, NOT SCIENTIFIC.
What a heap of shit... "evolution takes billions of years" my arse, and the term you are looking for is millions not billions. The earth its self is only a few billion years old, and last time I checked we were are not single celled organisms. Any way evolution can occur in seconds in bacteria. How do you think that bacteria mutates to withstand antibiotics etc?

what kind of a scientist can even pretend to believe in the least believable of theories is perposterous.

The vast majority of them, the finest minds on the planet, but there all wrong because Hazard PHD, VC, CMH, OBE, etc says so.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:01 PM
anyway, evolution doesn&#39;t actually take all that long, just look at bacteria, a population of bacteria can evolve to be anti biotic resistant in a few hours

actually, that is possible because they&#39;re an "r" level organism, meaning they reproduce at a much faster and greater rate than we do as "K" level organisms who rely more on staying around a long time to reproduce.



and john galt

i&#39;m in statistics, and you can&#39;t have a P of 100. P can only assume values from 0-1.00 and if P=1.00 then there is no need for probability then, is there? never try to explain statistics incorrectly again.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:15 PM

and john galt

i&#39;m in statistics, and you can&#39;t have a P of 100. P can only assume values from 0-1.00 and if P=1.00 then there is no need for probability then, is there? never try to explain statistics incorrectly again.

no experiment can have a P-value of 100


And it cant have a probability of 0. Its limited to values between 0 and 100.

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:10 AM
The revolution of the Earth on its axis and around our sun was opposed for the longest time, however, and now even the stallwart Catholic church (which is less obnoxious than even other institutions) has accepted it as fact and modified their central body of knowlege around it.

You make it sound as though you think this a good thing. Science should have destroyed the chruch on the spot - a change in doctrine is a cynical move to hold onto power and prolong its existence as the scourge of humanity.

[dopediana]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 24 2004, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 24 2004, 07:34 PM)
[email protected] 24 2004, 06:15 PM

and john galt

i&#39;m in statistics, and you can&#39;t have a P of 100. P can only assume values from 0-1.00 and if P=1.00 then there is no need for probability then, is there? never try to explain statistics incorrectly again.

no experiment can have a P-value of 100


And it cant have a probability of 0. Its limited to values between 0 and 100. [/b]
right-o. that&#39;s what i mean. 1<P<1.00

but probability can&#39;t be 100. not unless you&#39;re doing percentages which normal statisticians don&#39;t employ until giving the final result.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:14 PM
but probability can&#39;t be 100. not unless you&#39;re doing percentages which normal statisticians don&#39;t employ until giving the final result.
I know. I am agreeing with you. Comrade RAF however, seems to think that experiments can be proven correct without any doubt.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Good grief, here we go again.


You know what&#39;s nice about being finished with school for so many years? You actually have a chance to shut up and pay attention to reality rather than attemting to regurgitate precisely what your college professors spill on to you.


Here&#39;s a good example...


Have you ever worked for a large company in any sort of "management" position? Whenever the bosses get their "crew" together no "get their valued opinion" prior to making a decision that has been pre-decided there is always some asshole that pipes in with something like this;

"What we really need here is to get BEYOND THE PARADIGM and LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX"


You know what I want to do at my age? Tell that person to go fuck themselves and to shut the fuck up.


Now PAY ATTENTION lad.


If I perform an experiment where I bang my head repeatedly against a brick wall, my head will make contact with that wall.


This is absolute, and there is nothing you can do to change it kiddo.


God I hated college professors.


I am now done with this silly thread.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 25 2004, 01:59 AM
If I perform an experiment where I bang my head repeatedly against a brick wall, my head will make contact with that wall.
How is that an experiment. Experiment normally refers to tests using the scientific method.

[Guest1]

You just proved RAF&#39;s point.

He was trying to show you that you&#39;ve got your head so stuck in symantics, you&#39;re losing sight of the subject we are debating. So he went and hit his head against a brick wall to prove he&#39;d make contact. What was your response? "How is that an experiment?". You completely ignored the brick wall, you ignored that he hit it.

Leave the symantics behind.

[Rasta Sapian]

evolution is happening right now&#33; just think about it :blink:

and pass it on, make love not war :P

peace yall

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 25 2004, 10:17 AM
You just proved RAF&#39;s point.

He was trying to show you that you&#39;ve got your head so stuck in symantics, you&#39;re losing sight of the subject we are debating. So he went and hit his head against a brick wall to prove he&#39;d make contact. What was your response? "How is that an experiment?". You completely ignored the brick wall, you ignored that he hit it.

Leave the symantics behind.
Its not an experiment.

An experiment has to follow scientific theory.

You can prove anyone wrong by redefining the terms of debate.

[Osman Ghazi]

Evolution isn&#39;t even a theory. It&#39;s a fact. You fucking retard. What is the scientific method then? Tell me all the steps in your own words if you know so much. But of course the fact is that you don&#39;t. Religion is based on fiction. How can you possibly believe the same things as people who lived in caves 20000 years ago? And here i thought society was advancing.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 25 2004, 09:23 AM
Its not an experiment.

An experiment has to follow scientific theory.

You can prove anyone wrong by redefining the terms of debate.
Fucking hell&#33; Who cares? It was an example, do you see how you lost sight of the point of the example, and went straight for the abstract and unimportant?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 03:30 PM
Evolution isn&#39;t even a theory. It&#39;s a fact. You fucking retard. What is the scientific method then? Tell me all the steps in your own words if you know so much. But of course the fact is that you don&#39;t. Religion is based on fiction. How can you possibly believe the same things as people who lived in caves 20000 years ago? And here i thought society was advancing.
Im am not a fundie creationist. Evolution is a theory.


I also thought society was advancing. It used to be a "fact" that the sun went around the earth.

Theories change, and by not keeping a mind open to new thoeries, YOU become the backwards idiot.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Jan 25 2004, 04:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Che y Marijuana @ Jan 25 2004, 04:48 PM)
John [email protected] 25 2004, 09:23 AM
Its not an experiment.

An experiment has to follow scientific theory.

You can prove anyone wrong by redefining the terms of debate.
Fucking hell&#33; Who cares? It was an example, do you see how you lost sight of the point of the example, and went straight for the abstract and unimportant? [/b]
We are debating if you can truely prove anything beyond all doubt.

I say you cannot, because the mere observation of an experiment can CHANGE THE OUTCOME. Look up the result&#39;s of Yong&#39;s slit experiment

If you shine light at a box with 2 slits facing towards the light, at a distance far enough so the paralax is negligablel you get an interference pattern. This is explainable by light being a wave.

Back to yong&#39;s slit. If you put a detectors at the opening, the intereference pattern dissapears. Instead, you have something looking like this

... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...

The act of measuing which opening the light comes through, changes the results.



Banging your head against the wall isnt an experiment.

[Guest1]

It might, or might not be, it doesn&#39;t matter to me.

What the point proves, which you continue to ignore, is that you may not be able to prove anything 100%, but you can satisfactorily back it up, just enough for it to be considered the dominant theory until a better one comes.

It doesn&#39;t need to be proven.

It is the current dominant theory that if you try to bang your head against a wall, instead of passing through, your head would impact, most likely hurting it.

It might not be proven, but it&#39;s good enough for me.

So this rediculous stuff about evolution being unproven is pointless, nothing is proven, but it is the rational theory for now, and crationism is not a new theory we should be "open to".

[Osman Ghazi]

What we are saying is that evolution is backed up by factual information and logical conclusions. I didn&#39;t read this whole thread so i dont know if you actually are proposing creationism as a serious option. If so however, i would reply that you are propagating a theory which has no factual basis and whose only proof comes from the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. (i.e. mostly lies)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Banging your head against the wall isnt an experiment


C&#39;mon guys&#33; Get beyond the paradigm&#33; Look outside the box&#33;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 25 2004, 05:49 PM
but it is the rational theory for now, and crationism is not a new theory we should be "open to".
Creationism isnt even science.

[Osman Ghazi]

Galt what are you actually trying to say? Your not pro-evolution but your not pro-creationism either.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 06:14 PM
Galt what are you actually trying to say? Your not pro-evolution but your not pro-creationism either.
I am pro evolution, but I disagree with all the people who state its a fact. It really pisses me off when people try to state its a "fact".


Creationism is bullshit. I think even the Pope said that the world is more than 6k years old.

[Osman Ghazi]

Maybe you are right. However, i agree with Che y marijuana: nothing can be proven beyond a doubt. But humans require concrete facts to live their lives. It is very difficult to go around in life wondering if all of the sudden the earth will collapse or if you will be sucked into space. We need facts. And so we take the theory that makes the most sense to us and we call it a fact and we make it concrete so that we can have something absolute in our lives.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 06:31 PM
nothing can be proven beyond a doubt.
Which is what ive been saying for the last dozen posts.

[Vinny Rafarino]

nothing can be proven beyond a doubt



Wrong.

To be accurate, this should read "most things cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Osman Ghazi]

Very few things can be proven beyond a doubt and even then it is only within specific parameters. But i guess some things can be proven. This is becoming a very philosophical debate indeed.

[kadamangudy]

It seems that many here do not even understand evolution. In order to understand evolution we need to understand Natural selection. Certain features of organisms allow them to survive and reproduce in their specific environment.

For example consider fish living in the depths of the ocean. The fish feeds on smaller fish that it locates by the characteristic luminescence of its prey, a common feature of deep-sea fish. Suppose our fish is cruising through the dark water when up ahead it notices a faint glow. Assuming it is a prey item, our fish rushes forward in order to capture and devour it. But just as it nears the supposed prey, our fish realizes--too late--that instead of a prey item, it is actually a predator that has played a trick. This larger fish has suspended in front of it an appendage that glows just like the prey of our fish. This 2nd fish has lured our fish close enough to be swallowed up--it is now the prey.

The traits that allow an organism to be more successful in a given environment are called adaptations. An adaptation is a trait that has been selected for because organisms that have a trait have tended to produce more surviving offspring than those individuals that did not have the trait. Reproductive success is defined by the term fitness.

Perhaps it is easier to think of natural selection in reverse: what if a trait appeared in a population that caused the bearer to, on average, produce fewer offspring. Essentially that phenotypic sub-population would shrink until it disappeared. This, of course, would take many generations. This type of event has been observed in fast-reproducing populations, bacteria etc. Another factor that influences this is mutation, which is entirely random. But all of these things produce individuals with greater reproductive success and thus the population can slowly change. Natural selection, fitness, adaptation and mutation all lead to a change in a population over time.

This phenomenon can only be described as "evolution." In fact, the scientific definition of evolution is: The Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals. Note that an individual CANNOT "evolve" only a POPULATION can. By this definition, evolution clearly occurs in nature. I hope this clarifies the issue