Discussion: Evolution

[Matt]

Nothing is scientific fact. Hell, gravity isn't a scientific fact.

 

[sithgoblin]

An every day theory and a scientific theory are two different things.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

 

[sithgoblin]

lol, no you can't... show me the proof... show me the exact evolution of how a clock can evolve into a dog, and then I'll believe you.

Christ, just read back a few pages will you? This thread isn't even that long.

Experiments have proven that organic life can appear from inorganic substances.

 

[Avalanche]

I consider evolution to be fact. Makes sense in my mind.

 

[Malus]

I believe evolution is a fact.
But that does not preclude the existence of a God.
One has nothing to do with the other, unless you're one of these fundamentalists flat Earthers who insist that every word of the Bible, Torah or Koran be taken literally.

Evolution is about as close to a proven fact as one can get, however.
You can have a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle of Louie Armstrong that's missing a dozen pieces.(Somewhat like our current incomplete evidence for evolution.) But finding and placing those missing pieces is not going to make it a picture of John Denver.

Science and belief in a God are totally compatible, since faith is a choice and the existence of God is not proven. Extremist "thinkers" in both camps
make it a problem.
Never been a problem for me.

 

[sithgoblin]

Thanks for the Link Kritish. On anther note I still dun know why humans leaped over all the other species in terms of intelligence.

Our gene pool happened to develop a larger than normal brain. Random mutations happen all the time. But the fact that our larger than normal brain proved useful meant that we kept it and it kept growing over subsequent generations.

 

[Kritish]

Our gene pool happened to develop a larger than normal brain. Random mutations happen all the time. But the fact that our larger than normal brain proved useful meant that we kept it and it kept growing over subsequent generations.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

 

[Super Kal]

Christ, just read back a few pages will you? This thread isn't even that long.

i did, and it still doesn't prove that a single celled organism can become a living breathing human being

 

[sithgoblin]

i did, and it still doesn't prove that a single celled organism can become a living breathing human being

No, evolution does that.

 

[Super Kal]

evolution is nothing but a religion, which is based upon faith, and guesses... there is no scientific proof of the Big Bang, so it cannot be proven.

 

[Kritish]

evolution is nothing but a faith, which is based upon faith, and guesses... there is no scientific proof of the Big Bang, so it cannot be proven.

The big bang and evolution are different, all but a few rouge scientists will tell you that evolution isn't real. There's still quite a bit of debate on the origin of the universe. For all we know the universe could have always existed.

 

[sithgoblin]

evolution is nothing but a religion, which is based upon faith, and guesses... there is no scientific proof of the Big Bang, so it cannot be proven.

No, there is lots of proof for evolution, based upon observable evidence. If evolution were really so baseless, why is so widely accepted in the scientific community? Scientists are the first ones to admit when they're wrong and faulty theories are thrown out all the time.

Evolution has been controversial ever since it was introduced, and many people have tried to disprove it. But you know what? It has passed every test it has been given. That's why it's still around today. Quite frankly, if you don't find evolution convincing, it's because you don't understand it properly.

As for the Big Bang, that has nothing to do with evolution, but there's plenty of evidence for that too.

 

[sithgoblin]

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Right back at you.

 

[Super Kal]

No, there is lots of proof for evolution, based upon observable evidence. If evolution were really so baseless, why is so widely accepted in the scientific community? Scientists are the first ones to admit when they're wrong and faulty theories are thrown out all the time.

Evolution has been contriversial ever since it was introduced, and many people have tried to disprove it. But you know what? It has passed every test it has been given. That's why it's still around today. Quite frankly, if you don't find evolution convincing, it's because you don't understand it properly.

As for the Big Bang, that has nothing to do with evolution, but there's plenty of evidence for that too.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

 

[Addendum]

evolution is nothing but a religion, which is based upon faith, and guesses... there is no scientific proof of the Big Bang, so it cannot be proven.

Funny. I don't see science having places of worship, rituals that some consider sacred and important, or other such things that religions have plenty of.

Last time I checked, science and religion are two separate things

 

[sithgoblin]

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Funny how that is published on a creationist website and not in a peer reviewed scientific paper. I can tell you right now, because I've looked it up, to date no anti-evolution articles have been published in peer reviewed science journals. And it's not because scientists are biased, it's because the arguments and evidence provided in articles like the one you linked to don't hold any water.

 

[Super Kal]

Oh, and I suppose "Lucy" holds water, even though he was proven false...

 

[sithgoblin]

Oh, and I suppose "Lucy" holds water, even though he was proven false...

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Super Kal]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

you know... "Lucy"... found in 1972 and was supposed to be the "missing link" in the human evolutionary chain but was actually a skeleton of a pygmy chimpanzee... and was actually a he instead of a she, due to the size of the pelvic bone...

 

[Spider-Bite]

How about we stop caring so much about where we came from and start caring about where we're going?

Because untill your sure where you came from, you wont have any idea where your going.

For example some people think they are going to heaven, but if they knew where they came from, they'd know that heaven doesn't exist. Religion does pit mankind against itself. Look at the war on terror, Bush, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research.

Where people believe they came from, has a direct impact on where they choose to go.

 

[Spider-Bite]

you know... "Lucy"... found in 1972 and was supposed to be the "missing link" in the human evolutionary chain but was actually a skeleton of a pygmy chimpanzee... and was actually a he instead of a she, due to the size of the pelvic bone...

that's a lie. I watch evolutionary documentary's all of the time, and they always talk about Lucy. I have seen Lucy with my own two eyes at the muesuem in Chicago just two years ago. Lucy is austroplith, and her earlobes are too low to be a chimpanzee, and she has a pelvis designed to support the weight of the organs being above it, instead of in front of it.

 

[mightiest_mortal]

Maybe it was a left over one of those real life Hobbits.

YES HOBBITS WERE REAL!!! ...sortof.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm

 

[Sandman138]

evolution is nothing but a religion, which is based upon faith, and guesses... there is no scientific proof of the Big Bang, so it cannot be proven.

The two are entirely unrelated.

 

[Lpilgrim]

these threads are ridiculous. primarily because half the people on here merely throw out assertions. no one knows how to debate properly.

 

[Sandman138]

By the by, anybody want to tell me why it was so damn hard to find the Miller expiriment when it was such a huge breakthrough. More importantly, anybody care to explain why so few of us could bring it up right off the bat?