Actually, evolution is a theory.

[King Coal]

Didn't you ever study about René Descartes?

[indigobusiness]

1. Oh, shit.

Here we go.

[displacedtexan]

2. So is gravity. (eom)

[Bucky]

148. Good answer but evolution is a fact. There ARE theories about how it works

The fact that evolution takes place is not up for argument. It is already an observed phenomenon. What is argued about, what is subject to theory, is the hows and whys of evolution's workings. What causes it, how it takes place, what effects climate and predators have on how evolution unfolds.

Intelligent design is also a theory; it's a theory used to explain the natural phenonomenon of evolution.

But of course it's mostly a dumb theory.

[Selwynn]

199. Thank you for this simple, accurate, quotable response :D

Sums it up nicely.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. wow...here we go again...

maybe this one can go for 500 posts...

theProdigal

[Trajan]

4. Walking is a theory ....

Swimming is a theory .....

Gravity is a theory ....

Evolution is a theory ...

Walking is a reality ...

Swimming is a reality ....

Gravity is a reality ....

Evolution is a reality ....

[Felix Mala]

8. Is religion superstition...

... or just a delusional mental illness?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Superstition, probably.

[sangh0]

58. Neither, it's a philosophy

and like many other philosophies, it can't be proven nor disproven.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Actually, that's not entirely true.

Most true philosophy is based upon logical reasoning and deduction. Hume and Descartes, among other famous philosophers, made logical, and nearly mathematical, proofs to expound their philosophies. "I think, therefore I am" is a simplistic version of a much larger, complex logical proof of existence, in which because a person thinks and has thoughts, they exist, even if only as an entity that thinks in some larger, abstract, intangible universe.

[sangh0]

83. That's why I said

"like MANY other philosophies" and not "like MOST other philosophies"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

110. Also understand those philosophies you refer to aren't respected.

[sangh0]

160. LOL!

"not respected"?

BY whom?

FYI, the idea that you could speak for all and say that a whole group of unspecified philosophies are "not respected" as if it meant anything (every philosophy has it's detractors) can only be supported by a strong faith in one's own opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

163. By whom? By other philosophers.

Simply put, professional philosophers make a living criticizing each others' work. They will respect a work that proves out logically far more than one that they cannot. That's not me speaking, that's the way it is. Sorry if you disagree.

[sangh0]

165. A meaningless claim

So philosophies are criticized by philosophers - how perceptive of you to notice!!!

But since all sorts of philosophies have been criticized by philosophers, how does that make your statement meaningful?

You're trying to argue that some philosophies are inferior to others because they've been "criticized" (which you see as "not respecting") by other philosophers, but since nearly all philosophies are criticized, your argument fails to make any sort of meaningful distinction.

That's just the way it is. Sorry if you're too biased to see that your argument applies to all philosophies, not just the ones you don't like.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

169. You really can't see the forest through the trees, can you?

Which claim has more respect: one that is widely accepted but has a few criticisms or one that has many detractors?

This is a very simple "DUH" statement that you can't seem to draw. Yeah, no shit everything gets criticized. The point is claims you can't prove logically aren't nearly as respected by other professional philosophers as claims that you can prove. Period.

[indigobusiness]

173. Does love exist?

Prove it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

174. Love's not a philosophy.

Nor is it a theory. Nor is it scientific.

But nice try.

[sangh0]

179. Love is a philosophy

Maybe not for you, but for others it is.

[indigobusiness]

182. It is a good example, but nobody can force acknowledgement.

It is easy to live in denial. It is far harder to struggle with difficult concepts.

My point was simply that some things exist that can't be measured. Nothing is inherently scientific, but all things CAN be. And some THINGS cannot be measured.

We know very little, scientifically, but it seems we believe we know so much.

Perhaps, it is you that should "try"?
---

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'."

-Werner Heisenberg

[sangh0]

175. So now it's "how many criticisms"?

At first, you argued that because it was criticized, it was somehow inferior. Now you're arguing that it's HOW WIDELY it's been criticized.

So I'm guessing that a logic-based person such as yourself can cite a survey that shows which philosophies have been criticized by philosophers more than the others. Care to share it with us?

The point is claims you can't prove logically aren't nearly as respected by other professional philosophers as claims that you can prove. Period.

Given your certainty here, I'm sure you must have some sort of survey, poll, or other study which backs up YOUR claim. So where is it?

Logic suggests that you wouldn't say something is so certain to be true unless you had some EVIDENCE to back it up, yet you haven't posted any of that evidence.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

180. Evidence?!? Try common sense!!

Are you kidding me!? You want a poll? What you need is not a poll, but some serious help.

People don't typically bash something they respect and acknowledge as correct. You don't need a poll to prove that.

[indigobusiness]

184. Common sense is not scientific.

It is usually mere rationalizing.

Opinions cannot be argued. Only the underpinnings of opinion can be.

Why not try that?

[sangh0]

195. Common sense?

That's your "logical" argument?

You do realize that some people think that "the universe was created in 6 days" is also "common sense", don't you?

People don't typically bash something they respect and acknowledge as correct. You don't need a poll to prove that.

Nor do I need a poll to prove that people often bash things that deserve respect because they are correct. Evolution is something that gets bashed on a daily basis, even though it is correct.

If you were truly being logical, you'd admit that what people do and do not criticize has nothing to do with what is correct and deserving of respect.

[Telly Savalas]

155. But all systems of logical reasoning

require basic axioms from which one derives all the other conclusions. Such axioms can neither be proven nor disproven. Granted the axioms from respected philosphies are much more intuitive than some fairy tale from the Book of Genesis, but nevertheless acceptance of them is based on faith.

[indigobusiness]

197. Good point...but,

myth is very different from fairy tale.

[datasuspect]

24. it is definitely superstition

and can often result or be a symptom of mental illness (hyper religiosity)

[rogerashton]

41. All of the above.

n/t

[Felix Mala]

67. It's a philosophy AND a breath mint, in one.

:)

[bloom]

150. If enough people believe

in the same delusion - apparently it becomes a reality - by definition.


(At least that is what the psychologist implied...)

[artfan]

5. not quite

evolution is a fact as demonstrated by bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics

natural selection is a theory as to how evolution occurs

[Endangered Specie]

85. Glad you pointed this out...

That evolution happens is a fact, how it works is a theory (the finer point of which are still under debate).

[McKenzie]

6. nice link for you here

provided you are willing to be objective.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml

[K-W]

7. Astounding.

Simply astounding.

Ive never seen so many people resist having thier facts clarified with such militancy.

[ecstatic]

9. Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm

...evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man.

[cali]

12. Whaaat???

Of course evolution is observable. And comparing it to creationism is just absurd. The former is fact/science based. The latter is faith based.

[MrUnderhill]

13. How?

How is evolution observable?

[BlueEyedSon]

20. You can't see the darn electrons either, but they are a fact in your TV.

Wanna debate on the existence of electrons?

[MrUnderhill]

28. I agree...

I wasn't doubting whether evolution is "correct" or not... merely whether it is "observable".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Darwin observed evolution, as does every single anthropologist.

You can see it in the changes in the remains of living organisms over time. The same species will mutate and adapt to its surroundings. Want evidence? Vestigial organs. Check and mate.

[MrUnderhill]

35. That's not "observation".

You "observe" difference in fossils and come up with a "theory" for why it appears the way it does. That's a "theory".

You can gain lots of evidence that your theory is correct... but "observing" evolution means something very different.

You say "check and mate" and don't realize you're playing Monopoly.

[BlueEyedSon]

38. Are you suggesting that any natural process that takes longer than

say 100 years is not "observable"?

See any electrons yet? Or radio waves?

[MrUnderhill]

47. Nope...

100 years is far too short. We've observed phenomena on FAR longer time lines than that.

But it WOULD be possible to observe evolution, we just haven't done it yet. We've seen some evolutionary movement within species, but never from one to another.

As for radio waves and electrons... those CAN be observed. It's a silly argument. You can come up with a theory of how a particular process works and then set up a test to prove it... BTW "electron" is merely a descriptive term for a far more complex topic. But both items can be measured and described mathematically... and can be shown to exist as observable facts.. they are not "theory" merely because you can't see them with your naked eyes.

[rogerashton]

53. Evolution or speciation?

It seems to me that we have observed evolution, as I indicated in another post with a link to the NYT. Speciation, a particular and much narrower evolutionary event, may or may not have been observed. Processes such as sexual selection CLEARLY can lead to speciation, though, and have been extensively observed.

A common, and specious, argument of creationists is that because (alledgedly) speciation has not been observed, that evolution has not been observed. Non sequitur: they are two different things. Please do not lend aid and comfort to this kind of dishonest argument, even if you do not mean to argue for creationism.

[BlueEyedSon]

54. Good point

[MrUnderhill]

55. I'm afraid that's not the point.

That's trying to redefine the terms to avoid the argument.

I accept your use of terms as correct...

However, the "theory of evolution" being debated IS whether current species came in to being from the ongoign effects of evolution. That a few million years ago there was nothing that looked like a human, but today there is.

Whether the "theory of evolution" has or has not been observed must revolve around what was meant by that term. Both sides accept that you can cross two fruit flies and have different results... but if you never get something OTHER than a fruit fly... you have not "observed evolution" as it is used in the argument.

[rogerashton]

113. Since we can observe processes

that, in the context of the "theory" lead to speciation -- such as sexual selection, as I referenced -- we can indeed observe the process of speciation. I don't believe there is any scientific proposition with the property that every single phenonenon it postulates is independently observable. To hold evolution to that standard is prejudicial.

What you seem to be insisting on is a "hopeful monster," i.e. speciation in a single f1 generation. That is an idea that creationists love to attack -- but is not at all necessary for evolution. Most evolutionary thinkers would, I believe, suggest that evolution is gradual on the timescale of a generation (or on the timescale of the history of science) although it can appear quite sudden on the much longer timescale of geological time.

Since you chose your terminology, don't blame me for changing the subject.

[mike_c]

188. speciation is also easily observable....

Google "polyploidy" for abundant examples. And that's just the easiest to observe.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. No, that's observation.

You're observing hard facts before your eyes. You're looking at one set of remains from one year and comparing them to another. When one is different from another, that's called an observation. Perhaps you need another high school science class.

[MrUnderhill]

49. Not to a scientist.

And you sound as if high school was the last science class you took.

If I see a red ball at one end of a field and a green ball at the other end.... I may come up with a theory that balls change color as they move from one end of the field to the other. You are claiming that I have "observed" this phenomenon because I have seen them in both places and what I saw fits my theory.

Yes... when you "see" two sets of remains you have "observed" them. What you have NOT "observed" is the process by which one becomes the other. You have NOT "observed evolution".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Woeful analogy.

Your ball analogy was absolutely pathetic and shows how little you understand the concept.

I'm talking about the exact same species. Members of the same species, by definition, carry the same trademark characteristics. So when several of the same species of bird have a tail 50,000 years ago and today's version of the exact same species do not, that's an observable FACT. The species changed. There is no other answer for this. You have observed the fact that the species has changed. Therefore, you have observed that evolution took place. Maybe it didn't unravel before your eyes, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It's really not that difficult to understand. I'm not sure why you can't grasp that.

[MrUnderhill]

64. Sorry - no. Again.

First of all... there is no such example. If some bird has a tail and some other one does not... they can not be the "exact same species" - by definition.

You also can not have "observed" the "fact" that the species has changed because you don't KNOW that they are from the same species and not coincidental variations. You don't know that they didn't BOTH exist side-by-side and your sample coincidentally only got one type in one strata and the other in the next.

You don't know that horses didn't live in that prairie 10,000 years ago and then leave and zebras now live there. You can't "observe" that horses "evolved" into zebras because similar forms are found at different times.

It also isn't "observation" of the "theory of evolution" if you see a bird adapt to a changing environment. That IS observation of a PIECE of the theory (that an organism can adapt to a changing environment because of natural selection), but NOT the part that is in question (that is that an amoeba can evolve over time to a hermit crab). There has be ZERO observation of the part of the theory that is in doubt.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. You conveniently forgot the "50,000 years later" part.

It's easy to win when you change the facts. Too bad your logic doesn't back your assertion.

[MrUnderhill]

76. So change my 10,000 to 50,000. It's the same argument.

You have NOT observed that the theory of evolution is anything other than a theory (again, one I accept).

You can NOT look at two fossils and determine that one "evolved" in to the other. It simply isn't the only explanation for what you are looking at. But look at some of the other posts on the thread... the type of change you are discussing is observable over MUCH smaller periods of time. 50,000 years is not a relevant part of the discussion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. Fine, you want me to prove your misguided theory wrong, I'll do it.

You can prove migratory habits of different species. It's simple. They leave a trail of corpses. So yes, you can very easily distinguish that a horse might've lived in a prairie 10,000 or 50,000 years ago, track the trail of corpses to find where they've migrated to, and realize that a zebra, that has a very different physiological structure, lives in that prairie now is not the same species and is not related to those unearthed remains.

On edit: my reference to 50,000 years ago is very relevant. You seem to skip over that part completely. Over 50,000 years, you can track such large changes in a species. And yes, you'd need some samples from the years in between to link the two.

[MrUnderhill]

87. Sure... if you can show that nothing else EVER did that.

And if you assume that migratory habits are somehow "magical" and not the combination of a series of factors that could influence other similar species.

Also if you can show that you have found a way to find thousands of times the number of fossils we've found in the past. So few remains EVER become fossilized that you CAN'T find the trail you fantasize about. So you know that (statistically speaking) only a couple people alive today will become fossilized and found by scientists a million years from now? You really think they're going to be able to follow our migratory habits?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. This isn't worth my time at all.

You don't make any sense in the least. Who's exactly saying migratory habits are magical and why are "thousands of times the number of fossils we've found in the past" needed? Just to prove YOU wrong? Sorry pal, we don't need to convince YOU to be right.

And yes, it'll be really easy to find out migratory habits. We don't have any. And if we somehow start living in Antartica, it'll be really easy to distinguish when we moved there. The one or two fossils they'll find will be more than sufficient.

[Czolgosz]

90. You say, "If some bird has a tail and some other one does not...

... they can not be the 'exact same species' - by definition." I'm thinking that you ought to check out the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. They have plenty of dogs with vastly different heritable traits and they are the "exact same species" - by definition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

114. Thanks for misunderstanding the entire point.

Humans are thought to once have had tails. Proof of this is seen with some people having small tails. They're called vestigial organs. Are the people that are walking around with tails today not the same species as you and I?

[MrUnderhill]

118. Uh huh.... and do any of them NOT have a tail?

Take a look at what defines a "species".

[Czolgosz]

135. Dogs breeds without tails?

Some Mid Asians, Abruzzesi Shepherds, and Olde English Sheepdogs have been bred without tails.

Perhaps you should look at what defines a species. I understand species as being defined by their ability to interbreed. I think you can see certain populations of fruit flies and warblers have evolved in our lifetimes so that they can no longer interbreed even though they could do so 30 years ago. That is an observation of evolution. Likewise, there are Leopard frog species where the US sub-species can interbreed with both the Mexican and Canadian sub-species but the Mexican and Canadian sub-species have evolved so far from one another that they can no longer interbreed. That is an evolutionary process.

[DrWeird]

171. Alright, lets go with that analogy.

Let's say I see a red ball at one end of a field and a green ball at the other end of the field and I hypothesize that the red ball got green by rolling through the field. So how do I test that? The scientific method.

So I come up with a mechanism by which that could be accomplished. So I go investigate the field and find there's a big puddle of green paint in the middle of the field. Hmm. So I get my own red ball and roll it through my own green paint, and low and behold, it turns green. Alright, we need a driving force. Oh, my, there's a hill. The red ball is up the hill, the green ball is down the hill. Test it? Sure, put a ball on the hill and what do you know! It rolls down hill! So it looks like our theory that the red ball turned green by rolling through the field! Can we do anything else? Sure. Collect that green ball and analyze it. Oh my! It's covered in green paint and there's a red ball underneath. Can we do anything else? Sure. Run a chemical analysis of green paint, and hey, it's got the same chemical "fingerprint" as that green paint in the middle of the field, it couldn't have come from anywhere else. So there. We've proven beyond and respectable doubt that the ball turned green by rolling through the field.

The Creationist in this analogy would have just said God created that green ball at the end of the field as is.

[StClone]

63. We have convicted people

In a court of law on circumstantial evidence.

Observable facts that lead to a "beyond reasonable doubt" in support of a theory are part of Science. A crime need not be witnessed to become convictable -- observable facts may be static, not observably in action, but still support a theory.

[MrUnderhill]

66. True... and we recognize in law the DIFFERENCE between

"circumstantial" evidence and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is BY DEFINITION not the same thing as an eye witness to the crime. You cannot document that a scientific theory (which I happen to accept BTW) has been "observed" to be true because of circumstantial evidence.

[StClone]

78. The outcome is the same

Conviction : Theory

[MrUnderhill]

120. Yep. In Law... where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That isn't the scientific standard of proof. It certainly isn't how we say something is an observable, recreate able fact.

[StClone]

128. I am comparing

That a court of law can convict some one on less evidence than is now available to support Evolution. The difference is that legal process is based on man made structures of ethics. Scientific theory is based on competing ideas and selecting out the one(s) that best matches evidence and observation of already accepted theory. You do not offer a better explanation for fossils, extinction and the systematic similarities, yet identifiable speciation, of life.

[MrUnderhill]

132. I agree. It's why I accept the theory as correct.

But I come from a scientific background. The "most likely hypothesis" is perfectly adequate for placing in to a textbook. Particularly one without ANY scientific alternative (we have CERTAINLY not observed an "Adam an Eve" creation either). But it also still correct to refer to it as a "theory".

Where I disagree is that science is NOT based on selecting one theory that best matches observed facts. It's often what we settle for, but the issue is never "settled" until verified. I have little doubt that we will eventually the data we need, but our arrogance assumes that our data set is complete. I suspect we haven't scratched the surface.

[atre]

100. Actually, there is a distinction between evolution and natural selection

Evolution is the macro form and is not observable in a labratory. There is strong evidence for this theory, but at this point it is no more fact than sixteenth century astrology.

Natural selection is the micro form. We can view bacteria naturally select in a lab. This is a scientific fact.

[cali]

45. For example.....

insects developing a resistance to insecticides, bacteria developing a resistance to antibiotics.

[MrUnderhill]

52. Correct! But not "evolution".

We've seen adaptive changes occur... but never the change from one species to another. The insect never becomes resistant to insecticide by becoming a bird.

[StClone]

69. So what is you explanation for speciation

And ontogeny and phylogeny?

[MrUnderhill]

80. Those aren't the same thing.

Are you just trying to use big words?

Your personal development (ontogeny) caused by variations in your diet and/or exercise are not passed down to your decendants and are not "evolution"

Speciation IS adequately explaned by natural selection (a PART of evolutionary theory).

And phylogeny is merely swapping terms.

[StClone]

95. What I am getting at

Is that in ontogeny a free standing creature existing static only bound by it's experience. How does one accept this when life as show propensity to bounce back after near complete annihilation during cataclysm during earth's history. A few species to many? How is that possible.

[StClone]

102. Same words?

What? These are not big words and they have distinctly different meanings and are often used in comparing Theocracy vs. Theoretical. You knew that right?

[MrUnderhill]

125. Yes... they have "distinctly different meanings"

and you lumped them in as if they all discussed the same thing.

I said "that's not evolution" and you said "then how do you explain..."

Among the things you asked me to explain... ontogeny is not a part of evolution and phylogeny is essentially evolution itself.

That is, if we're using "evolution" in the larger sense we've been debating. To say "how do you explain phylogeny" is begging the question.

[StClone]

139. The terms are important

Because either you believe in Evolution Theory (phylogeny) or you have an alternate belief system which I assume is ontological (free standing individual with connection only to it's direct ancestors).

If you commit that life is free-standing then why does it have all the shared characteristics of DNA and carbon basing. Evolution Theory would explains this to my satisfaction. I would like to hear what observations, evidence you have for your alternate theory.

You can not just attack the Science without creating a better wheel -- unless attacking Science is your wheel and faith is your axel.

[MrUnderhill]

143. I have no "alternate theory". I don't even accept that there IS one.

Certainly not a scientific one.

But the lack of an alternate theory lends little weight to one you DO have that is yet unproven.

We have similar problems with our theories on the origin of the Universe. "Big bang" "steady state" "cyclical", whatever. We've always got little tricks that fill in the gaps ("dark matter" for instance). It's very possible that the "truth" is not found in our current set of potential theories. i still find the "dark matter" solution to our mass problem to be laughable.

In short... I'm not "Attacking science"... I'm DEFENDING it. It's what we do. We avoid referring to a theory as established fact until it crosses that threshold. "Best available theory" is FINE for publication. "ONLY scientific theory" is OK too. We just don't claim it was "established fact" until it IS. Right now it's just a really good theory. That's OK. LOTS of science has not progressed beyond that point. Some may never.

[StClone]

159. But the lack of an alternate theory lends little weight....

There is no perfect theory only the best available.

The search continues.

[dummy-du1]

164. Not true

Check out this FAQ, there are dozens of examples, plants and animals:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[rogerashton]

48. As reported in NYT yesterday, for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/science/30bird.html?oref=login

Swallows are getting sexier.

Male barn swallows attract females with long tail feathers, and European researchers have observed that over the last 20 years those feathers have become much longer.

"We've demonstrated quite a dramatic change in a short period of time," said Dr. Anders Pape Moller, an evolutionary biologist at Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who conducted the research with Dr. Tibor Szep of the College of Nyiregyhaza in Hungary. The findings are to be published in The Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

[texastoast]

57. See post 36

and the two responses to it.

[MrUnderhill]

72. See 52.

Simply put: "Evolution" CAN be observed to be true if we narrow the definition to adaptive change caused by natural selection.

But the "theory" of evolution that is argued today is not that nothing can ever evolve into a better fit for it's environment (heck, just look at the differences between humans in different parts of the world... we clearly have adapted to our environments) - the "theory of evolution" would have required that moth to become a lizard (or some other species) in order to say we had observed the theory of evolution to be true.

[StClone]

117. For one species to evolve

Is not a stretch to find phylum derive from another. And then there is extinction. Without evolution there would be no replacement of lost species. How can you account for there being any species left at all if extinction rate would have left the Earth devoid of life by now? Why are you arguing the opposite other than devil's advocate?

[Czolgosz]

124. Evolution does not suggest that moths become lizards

Evolution suggests that moth populations become geographically separated into different environments, each part of the separated species evolves uniquely to adapt to the particular environment inhabited by the breeding group of that geographically isolated part of the species, and as the separated populations of the single species evolve differently to adapt to their different habitats, the separate populations eventually specialize so that they can no longer successfully interbreed, and the species which was formerly one species is now two separate moth species, AND NEITHER SPECIES IS A LIZARD. Stated another way, you can breed Targhee hounds from Staghounds and Irish Setters, but it would take you many generations to breed a dog that looked like a Great Dane from a population of Yorkshire Terriers (you could do it, history proves this, but it would take many generations of selective breeding).

[MrUnderhill]

130. Again.. the difference between "evolution" (change) and the "THEORY

of Evolution" which says that mankind got here by way of single cell creatures continually evolving until we got what we currently see.

One is easily verifiable and observable in nature. The other is a reasonable assumption based on the evidence we currently have. It is the by far the most likely process by which we became what we are.

That isn't the same thing as an observed fact. But it DOES fit all of the observations we've made thus far and is thus appropriate for textbooks.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread. PLENTY of things in science are technically "theories"... it doesn't mean they aren't true.

[Czolgosz]

138. Of course you cannot observe humans evolving from single cells.

Only a moron would suggest that you must observe that specific iteration of the evolutionary process to be able to say that there is observable proof of evolution. You may as well insist that you actually had to be present on Magellan's trip around the world to offer any proof that the world is round. Science has observed evolution of various species, birds and fruit flies being the most commonly understood. Here's a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm

[MrUnderhill]

141. No. It isn't THAT complicated...

In order for the theory of evolution (which currently has no scientific competition) - as opposed to "creation" to move from "theory" to OBSERVED fact... we merely need to observe a change that goes beyond what we've discussed here.

I suppose they COULD argue that it wouldn't prove that's how HUMANS got here... but that would be a stretch.

No, you don't need to show a prehistoric videotape of man coming in to being the first time to have evidence of that part of evolution. But just ONE species turning in to some OTHER species would certainly be nice. Better would be one genus evolving in to another. Then a recognition that the "proof" of evolution (as it opposes "creationism") would involve a much higher order change (one kingdom to another).

[Czolgosz]

144. I provided you a nice link and everything -- YES, EVOLUTION WAS OBSERVED

from one species to another. It's happened in fruit flies and in bird species as just two examples. For example, the link in included discussed a species of fruit fly that was separated into two populations which adapted to the point that the two populations could no longer interbreed. If you don't accept that as evolution from one species to another, you (1) need to look up the word species and (2) have a child's understanding of evolution because a fruit fly isn't going to evolve into a dinosaur and the fact that it ain't gonna happen neither proves nor disproves evolution.

[MrUnderhill]

147. With respect... no you didn't.

Your link was filled with "may" and "could". That isn't the same thing. It says "on the verge of becoming separate species" and "rarely, if ever, interbreed".

There's also a difference between whether they CAN and whether they DO interbreed. We all show preferences of one sort or another. Maybe the new fruit flies are prejudiced? :-)

And for it to be scientifically proven that the "theory of evolution" is no longer a "theory", but the establishes fact of "where humans come from", you need to go WAY beyond "speciation" and on to "kingomiation" (to coin a phrase). If it's still a fruit fly... it doesn't get us very far toward proving that single-cell life became plants and that something (either one) then became simple animals and that they grew progressively more complicated until we've got a few of us typing away on the internet.

[Czolgosz]

152. You said, "just ONE species turning in to some OTHER species would

certainly be nice." I gave you the example of Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae. Here's an article that talks about evolution in salamanders and songbirds:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

If that doesn't help you, than I'm unable to help. I'm off to lunch.

[MrUnderhill]

154. Ok.... Then it certainly appears "nice"

Enjoy your lunch! :hi:

[texastoast]

145. I'm missing something

"But the 'theory' of evolution that is argued today is not that nothing can ever evolve into a better fit for it's environment . . ."

I haven't read that. I was raised on the theory that a better fit is evolution. I've read nothing that that the moth would have to become a lizard. The moth might get larger wings, a tougher body, a bitter taste, etc. A dinosaur would eventually develop feathers to help in an ice age, but retain a vestige of its raptor build, scales on its legs, and sharp claws. Pretty soon, someone would arbitrarily declare this new creature a different "species."

Just like a pongid would naturally adapt to have a larger forebrain, use tools more effectively than its predecessors, move from vegetarianism to omnivorism, gradually lose its appendix as the need to digest tough vegetable fibers faded, lose much of its hair as the idea of clothing developed, etc.

I don't see any narrowing of the definition at all.

But Creationists needn't worry. Evolution and creationism are the same thing. It's our perception that time is linear that is the problem.

[sangh0]

59. Here's how

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/science/30bird.html?oref=login

"Sexier Posterior Evolves Almost Overnight

Swallows are getting sexier.

Male barn swallows attract females with long tail feathers, and European researchers have observed that over the last 20 years those feathers have become much longer.

"We've demonstrated quite a dramatic change in a short period of time," said Dr. Anders Pape Moller, an evolutionary biologist at Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who conducted the research with Dr. Tibor Szep of the College of Nyiregyhaza in Hungary. The findings are to be published in The Journal of Evolutionary Biology..."

[MrUnderhill]

74. A sexier barn swallow... but still a barn swallow, right? Still a bird?

Not the same thing.

[StClone]

77. Wrong, if

The Barn Swallow population in question is isolated enough so that other populations no longer recognize it as one of their own.

You're out on a limb here.

[MrUnderhill]

134. "IF"

That's not actually the "if" in question, but it's stila pretty big "if".

It's "IF" they can no longer interbreed. (Not, btw, if they are disinclined to). THEN they are a new species.

[StClone]

158. Interbreeding is not a criterion separation of bird species

Bullock's & Baltimore Orioles
Blue-winged & Golden-winged Warblers

These two sibling species pairs actually are great examples of interbreeding and producing fertile young yet are distinct species.

Their speciation is recent (10,000s of years) and related to periods of Ice Age/Interglacial isolation supporting population drift theory and geographical as well as ethnological isolating mechanisms.

[MrUnderhill]

166. That's kinda begging the question, isn't it?

"Their speciation is recent" would be disproven if they were the same species... and the biological definition of a "species" is whether they can interbreed. So at best this is circular.

In fact, there are numerous examples of warblers that were once thought to be separate species (based on colorization etc) that are now thought to be parts of the same species because they have been found to interbreed and hybridize back to the other form.


http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsite/text/essays/Species_and_Speciation.html

I suspect the weakness here is the use of a classification system that predates the theory we are discussing. Distinctions on definitions of "species" may be too fine a point for the argument.

The question of "once there were no humans and now there are... how did this happen?" is not adequately addressed by arguing whether a bird with a red breast gives birth to a bird with a yellow breast and whether OTHER red-breasted-but-otherwise-indistinguishable birds will find that sexy. As was previously posted... the different varieties of dogs look,sound, and act dramatically different yet are classified as the same "species". We have yet to observe anything "evolving" in any way that would explain our existence (and that's obviously what the creation/evolution debate is all about).

[StClone]

181. One warbler I can think of in the U.S.

That is not many.

That being the "Audubon's" and "Myrtle" complex now considered mono specifically as the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Current avian taxonomic opinion is that there are more species out there than formerly recognized rather than less.

The North American Traill's Flycatcher was found to be two distinct non-hybridizing species Willow and Alder. The Fox Sparrow complex of the N. America may well involve several species as was found to be the case in recent splitting of the Canada Goose into several "new" species (Cackling and Canada). South America may well have one-third more species if not multiples of currently recognized forms as studies seem to indicate.

The early identification of different forms eventually gave rise to the scientifically based Linnaeus classification system still fits well with Evolutionary Theory.

[StClone]

191. Higher levels

I think perception may be lacking in your mind. You accept the fluid nature of life to the extent that it may allow for species formation but not on any lower (higher?) levels. The same forces that create species were at work at different levels, but you may need to visualize it on a (time) scale that is confounding.


Kingdom . . . .Animalia
Phylum . . . . .Chordata
Subphylum . .Vertebrata
Class . . . . . . Mammalia
Order . . . . . . Primates
Suborder . . . .Anthropoidea
Family . . . . . .Hominidae

Exquisitely preserved early life forms in the Burgess Shale indicates several Phyla of life that later went extinct. In the zero sum gains that you by inference advance, it does not allow for Phylum-level extinction. Extinction on the species level occurs unquestionably: it's appearance at the level of Phylum could not occur, from what I gather of your views, because no new Phylum are being produced. The same thing goes for Class and Order. Extinction with no replacement creation would ultimately mean life would go bye-bye. Cataclysmic extinctions on early earth would have pretty much done life in if it could not recolonize earth without Class and Order level Evolution.

Fossils are individual snap shots not moving pictures unless one does an assemblage and even there missing punctuations form an unbroken line.

[sangh0]

86. Do you know what evolution is?

Evolution involves itself with the changes in the distribution and frequency of genes in a given population.

IOW, it doesn't require the development of new species. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. It is about much more than the creation of new species.

[MrUnderhill]

109. Yes... do YOU know what the "THEORY of evolution" is?

BOTH sides of the evolution/creation argument agree that evolution exists within species. There is no "creationist" who believes that these barn swallows CAN'T have changed in the way they did. We can FORCE mutational evolution in the lab and can observe it in nature... that is NOT the argument.

What these creationsists deny is that humans came from lower creatures. That once there was bacteria, which became plants, which became fish, which became lizards, which eventually became Mankind. THIS is the "theory of evolution" that has yet to be observed. We have not observed that one type of life becomes some other type of life. That the barn swallow would cease being a bird at all and become a cat.

I am NOT arguing whether or not this happened. Merely whether we can be said to have observed the theory as FACT and not merely as the most plausible THEORY for what we DO observe.

[RedCloud]

190. Did you know that evolution is breeding success?

Not the survival of the fittest. What good does it do to be as strong as Hercules if nobody will mate with you?
I am about to get clobbered for being on-line.
Looks like another chance to pass on the genes is coming up.

Here's something the Klan doesn't know. We all come from 24 AFRICAN women. About the time of the last super-volcano eruption. Looks like many other pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall into place.

Can the doubters of evolution please contact their nameless deity and get that deity involved?

Check out this linguistic evolution ye doubters of evolution:

Greek "Zeus"- Latin "Deus"- Spanish "Dios". Eye caramba!
Or this word "god" which leads back to Odin!

Hercules had a real virgin for a mother, Alcmene. Zeus impregnated her with "light effects". Notice here how Zeus respects marriages and doesn't commit adultery, like other deities!

Hercules was a shepherd, not a carpenter, get it? Hence, he was the Good Shepherd.

Herc was powerful, but used his powers in the right way. Hence he was the Prince of Peace. Got it yet?

OK, since he had a deity for a father he was known as the Son of Man, get it?

When Hercules voluntarily self immolates, he is lost for THREE days to Zeus who finds him and by taking him back to Mt. Olympus creates a spiritual bridge between the Earth and Mount Olympus. Because humans can now enter Mount Olympus, Herc was revered as the "Soter" or Savior. Stop copycatting him. The Greeks preceded the Christian plagiarists.

Imagine what such words could do to those red state voters.

[murielm99]

201. Thank you for saying that.

Most people do not understand that that is the definition.

[Phx_Dem]

81. Thru fossil records..... n/t

[magellan]

149. Just look at man's best friend

Dogs all started out as wolves, but through aggressive breeding of selected features over the centuries we now have a cavalcade of various 'breeds'.

Read the National Geographic article "Was Darwin Wrong?" There are plenty of other examples of observable evolution in there.

[bowens43]

162. here you go.....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

[mike_c]

178. having been through this for days, I'll simply refer you...

...to the posts in other recent threads in which I and others posted numerous examples of direct observations of evolution in action. The biological literature is BURDENED by the sheer number of them. For anyone to still think that evolution cannot be directly observed is truly frightening. First year biology students know better than that!

[Felix Mala]

23. Like Einsteinian theory

evolution is a theory that gets confirmed every time we learn something new about our universe, whether it's animal genome, geologic changes or the life of stars and galaxies. There's never any "new" evidence pointing to creationism because all of it's "facts" have been pre-approved and are irreproachable and unchangeable. Any discovery that doesn't fit it's boundaries, has to be negotiated out of existence.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. This will call into question all sorts of "theories"

For example, any process that occurs over geological spans of time would be impossible to directly observe or construct experiments around. Star formation, for example.

OTOH, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a natural selection. (i suppose there are other examples that occur within a decade or 2 and hence are observable).

[murielm99]

46. The spotted pepper moth. nt

[mike_c]

189. yep, another great example of observed evolution....

Biston betularia.

[K-W]

21. I guess if you didnt understand science in the slightest

that might make sense to you.

[ecstatic]

25. Is there anything specific in the article

That didn't make sense in your opinion? I don't claim to be an expert on evolution, but the things the author said made sense. He didn't appear to be partial towards any particular viewpoint.

ETA: oops... I now see that he is with the Creation Institute. My bad.

[neoteric lefty]

84. Dr Menton makes a pretty big leap at the end of that essay

He describes micro- and macro eveloution --> Says that some scientists don't believe a series of micro evolutions can create a macro evolution --> Macro evolution is a belief on the same level as creationism.

Big steps there, Menton. A little too big, me thinks :)

[Endangered Specie]

88. Evolution is one of the most

scrutinized, experimented and, observed theory/fact in science.

There is simply no question that evolution happens, that part is a fact, it has been observed directly and indirectly numerous times

How it happens is technically a "scientific theory", but it too has been well documented and many experiments have not disproven it. Only some of the finer points of it are subject to debate today.

[moggie]

10. Again?

Why is it necessary to have a million threads on this topic?

[cali]

11. This is a ridiculous thread starter.

If you have something to say on the subject, say it. Elaborate on your thread title. And yes, I did study about Descartes and consciousness, but I certainly can't claim to remember much. Do enlighten us poor ignorant folks.

[mmonk]

14. What about our organs

that have no further use or our sinuses? Are they just filler?

[clydefrand]

34. Ooooooooooooooh, but my sinuses get used all the time.

The damn things like to get infected as often as they can. But I think they have something to do with making our heads lighter! Hollow! Maybe I'll name mine for a repug.

[Avalux]

15. This is rediculous

Once and for all -

A scientific theory (such as evolution) stands until proven wrong - it is the explanation of scientific observations. The onerous is not on proving it correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.

Some of you need to get a clue.

[sangh0]

61. Very wrong

According to the Scientific Method, theories must be "scientifically" (ie. according to the standards of the Scientific Method) proven. Theories are not "Hypothesies that haven't been disproven".

I suggest you read up on the Scientific Method before advising others to acquire a clue.

[Avalux]

91. No, you're wrong

and if you're going to dispute what I say, state a source. There is no requirement in science that a theory must be scientifically proven.

"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

[sangh0]

98. The key words in your argument were "In common usage"

We are talking about science, so "common usage" is overruled by the definition of "theory" used by scientists. Even your quote refers to an "established paradigm". How do you think these paradigms get established in science.

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

And this is why my previous post referred to a theory being "scientifically" proven, and not "proven beyond ANY doubt" Science does not require certainty.

Also, wikipedia is not the best source.

[Avalux]

115. You are lacking basic understanding

The theory of evolution was arrived at by observing an array of facts and phenomena - none of which can be duplicated and proven by man-made experiments. The reason evolution has withstood the test of time - no other theory has come along that trumps it. Evolution cannot be proven, but it can't be disproven either.

[sangh0]

123. No need to insult to make a point, particularly when your point is wrong

The theory of evolution was arrived at by observing an array of facts and phenomena - none of which can be duplicated and proven by man-made experiments.

Untrue. For one thing, I made no mention of limiting this to "man-made" experiments. I'm not even sure ewxactly what a "man-made" experiment is and how exactly it differs from the other experiments. Also, evolution can be duplicated and proven through "man-made" experiments (as I understand the term to mean) involving the breeding of plants.

The reason evolution has withstood the test of time - no other theory has come along that trumps it.

Wrong. If something that contradicted evolution were to be observed, it would call into question the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The idea that planet orbits were circular was disproved, many times, before people understood what was really going on.

[Phx_Dem]

93. actaully...

Theories are not proven, alternative theories are disproven. seems like splitting hairs but it's not. You have to read up on research methods.

[sangh0]

103. "Scientifcally" proven

In this sense, the word "scientifically" is a qualifier, signifying that it need not be "proven beyond ANY doubt". That's why I specifically and EXPLICITELY stated that the proof was done to the standards of science. I said this because I HAVE read about research methods and I understand the standard of proof their work requires.

[Endangered Specie]

97. Sorry, in science nothing can be 100% proved.

"scientifically proved" means not disproven after a whole lot of thorough testing, and that there are no worthy competitors and alternate theories.

To say "Proved" in science is really short for, 99.9...% likely, or, to use a legal term 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

by the way there is more than one scientific method.

[sangh0]

106. Sorry , but you should learn what "scientifically proven" means

which should not be so hard seeing as how I explicitely explained that it was according to the standards that science has set. IOW, it's not "proof beyond any doubt"

[Endangered Specie]

157. What part of this do you not understand...

In science you cannot 100% prove ANYTHING! The way it works is your hypothesis is tested and scrutinized by others in which should be an attempt to prove it wrong (sorta like you pull on a rope to make sure it will hold). After many experiments have been done, and the principles of the hypothesis match available data and there are no real competitors, then you have a scientific theory.

I said reasonable doubt to mean, that, in science, something isnt proven 100%.

[sangh0]

161. The part where you think it differs from what I've said

In science you cannot 100% prove ANYTHING!

I agree, and that's why NOTHING I've said contradicts this.

The way it works is your hypothesis is tested and scrutinized by others in which should be an attempt to prove it wrong (sorta like you pull on a rope to make sure it will hold).

The motivation of the experimenter (be it to prove or to disprove) has no effect on the experiment itself. THe experiment either supports or fails to support the theory, REGARDLESS of whether the experiment was an attempt to prove or an attempt to disprove.

I said reasonable doubt to mean, that, in science, something isnt proven 100%.

And I said something like "proven to the scientific methods standards" to distinguish that from "100% proven for certain"

So what's your problem? I'm agreeing with you and yet, you're still claiming that I've said something wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Rene Descartes was a drunken fart....

who was just as shloshed as....



/oops, my bad.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Don't put Descartes before the horse.....

(sorry!)

[BlueEyedSon]

39. "I drink therefore I am!"

[Bridget Burke]

18. There is Scientific Theory

Then, there's my "Theory of Those Who Post Divisive Threads."

[sam sarrha]

26. Evolution is a Fact.. how it works is a theory.. send you kids to a

private Christian school if you don't like this one theory taught in one class.

The subject is only hammered on to hide the fact that the public school system is a total failure... and the Reich thinks that if they turn it into a church it will work better... tho Praying is cheaper than doing what needs to be done ,tho less effective.

keep your religion out of the public schools.....PERIOD, they are bad enough as it is.

[RedCloud]

192. Let's put evolution into the churches!

yeah baby. Talk about equal time!

Let's make some chocolate neanderthals to help the young 'uns decide better!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. If you're referring to Descartes horribly misguided "proof of God"...

It's been shredded by nearly every other philosopher.

[datasuspect]

33. haven't read

a discourse on method or the meditations in years , but i thought he was a freethinker who included the god stuff to satisfy the authorities, i might be wrong.

interesting book though.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Wasn't so much a book, but...

he did write a proof of the existence of god on a logical basis. Didn't work at all.

[jpgray]

29. I get it. You're trying to tell us you don't exist?

Because you weren't thinking when you posted this, obviously.

:D

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. oy vey

[Felix Mala]

32. "The Georgia State Supreme Court...

...today ruled that a school board could not order its teachers from refraining to use the word 'evolution.' In a compromise, though, they did rule that dinosaurs could be referred to as 'Jesus horses.'"

-- Jimmy Fallon

[texastoast]

36. Actually, it is an observable fact

At least in one species that I'm aware of. The white moth in England, as I recall, quickly evolved as the Industrial Revolution darkened the white-barked trees where the moths lived as the trees' bark greyed with soot and ash. White, the moths were easy targets for predators. Since they reproduce so quickly, evolution was observed as the moths' camouflage changed from white to grey.

This story from my anthropology professor, many years ago, when she looked at the class after telling about the moth and said, "Religion does not fly in this class. Evolution is a fact. Get over it."

[jpgray]

37. This is observable also in Bacteria, etc. (nt)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Also happens with other insects and their immunities to pesticide

[sangh0]

65. What's being observed is the EFFECTS of evolution

not evolution itself.

Saying that evolution is observable is like saying you can observe digestion because you can smell someone's fart.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. If the effect cannot exist without the cause,

the effect is proof of the cause.

Insects cannot become immune to certain pesticides without undergoing a fundamental change in their physiological structure. Therefore, if they are now immune to something that was once poisonous, there is no other way to explain this other than that a fundamental change has occurred. How, exactly, is that not proof of evolution when that is the very definition of what evolution is?

[sangh0]

94. But you can't observe "the cause"

when it's genes. Furthermore, the point here is not whether or not observation proves evolution. The point is that what is being observed is the EFFECTS of evolution, not evolution itself.

Insects cannot become immune to certain pesticides without undergoing a fundamental change in their physiological structure. Therefore, if they are now immune to something that was once poisonous, there is no other way to explain this other than that a fundamental change has occurred. How, exactly, is that not proof of evolution when that is the very definition of what evolution is?

Simple. Observing that insects are no longer poisoned by a substance they once were vulnerable PROVES that a change occurred, but does not explain what caused the change nor how it occurred.

Furthermore, "change" is not "the very definition of what evolution is" Evolution is about how the frequency and distribution of GENES change within a given population over time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

119. Definition:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

The definition of evolution does not get into why it occurs. The theory of evolution, which is why it's still just a theory, does get into why it occurs. The theory part is not about whether or not changes in species take place. That part of evolution is fact. The theory part is that evolution occurs as a form of natural selection, or in other words, species changing in order to adapt to their environments.

[sangh0]

126. Very bad dictionary

It doesn't include the "biological" definition of the word. Just the "phylogenical" definition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

131. It's Merriam Websters.

Take it up with them.

[sangh0]

137. From dictionary.com

which isn't the greatest source either:

Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.[/b

[Endangered Specie]

105. We have based the model of the atom

(protons, electrons, neutrons) all of chemistry etc... entirely on the effects, the atom cannot be seen directly.

You cannot see an electron, but you can observe its affects (like powering the light above you).

[sangh0]

111. Right

You observe the effects, not the atoms themselves. And from that, along with other observations, you can construct a theory and test it according to scientific principles. If your theory can predict the effects (along with a few other requirements), then you have a valid theory

[opstachuck]

170. i disagree

evolution is involved in everything in human existence, our culture, our genes, our politics. if you can't see it, you're blind. saying that we evolved from a particular special line is technically a theory. but that's not THE theory of evolution, it is just one theory for one species. evolution is a much larger concept that can be witnessed in yourself and everything around you on any given day. or maybe i'm just high

[sangh0]

177. You are conflating several of evolutions various definitions

We are speaking about the science of evolution, and not "cultural evolution" or any of the other "evolutions" you mention. Since you failed to "see" this, in spite of the scores of posts in this thread, I would suggest you hold off on declaring anyone else "blind"

saying that we evolved from a particular special line is technically a theory. but that's not THE theory of evolution, it is just one theory for one species. evolution is a much larger concept that can be witnessed in yourself and everything around you on any given day. or maybe i'm just high

And where did I say anything that contradicts this?

[opstachuck]

186. well...

first off, the thing that's nice about studying bacteria is that you can witness countless generations over the span of hours. in the molecular biology lab i work in we witness natural selection on the bacterial level everyday. we see the environment essentially choose the bacterial adaptations that shape the genetic makeup of future generations. so how is this not witnessing evolution?

as to your other point, if you put barriers between your perception of cultural evolution and biological evolution then you'll likely miss the bigger picture - it's all science. they're all based off the same principles of adaptation and they all contribute to the same goal of survival. so no, i didn't fail to see that people were focusing on the biological aspect of evolution, i was merely trying to say that you can witness the principle of evolution in other areas and that by observing it in other areas you can acheive a greater level of proof.

[sangh0]

196. OK

first off, the thing that's nice about studying bacteria is that you can witness countless generations over the span of hours. in the molecular biology lab i work in we witness natural selection on the bacterial level everyday. we see the environment essentially choose the bacterial adaptations that shape the genetic makeup of future generations. so how is this not witnessing evolution?

What you are seeing are the genes expressing themselves. You are not seeing "evolution" itself. What you are seeing is the phenotype of the genes that were selected by the environment.

as to your other point, if you put barriers between your perception of cultural evolution and biological evolution then you'll likely miss the bigger picture - it's all science. they're all based off the same principles of adaptation and they all contribute to the same goal of survival.

I agree that the theory of evolution supplies us with info that helps us better understand other natural phenomena, but that doesn't mean that they are "evolving" in the sense of the word as it is being discussed in this thread. I am not saying that we should NEVER speak of evolution as it's defined in other fields, such as culturala studies, etc. I am saying that those subjects are not being discussed in this thread.

i was merely trying to say that you can witness the principle of evolution in other areas and that by observing it in other areas you can acheive a greater level of proof.

Now, *THAT* makes it a whole lot clearer, and I have to agree with you there. As I just said in the preceding paragraph, the principles of evolution can help us better understand other natural phenomena, and (as ou point out) the more it helps us understand these things, the more confident we can be in the accuracy and correctness of the theory. After all, the "acid test" of a theory is it's ability to predict things.

[opstachuck]

198. alright

i see what you're getting at... you can witness the process (ie adaptation) but in the sense of the creation or 'evolution' of new species, that process would be too protracted to observe. makes sense. as a matter of convenience, i refer to the smaller adaptations as evolution because i find it helpful in putting things in context, but as far as the scientific definitions are concerned i suppose it is kind of cheating.

[sangh0]

200. And I agree with you AGAIN

as a matter of convenience, i refer to the smaller adaptations as evolution because i find it helpful in putting things in context, but as far as the scientific definitions are concerned i suppose it is kind of cheating.

No wait!! Stop the presses! I disagree with you


Smaller adaptations ARE every bit as much the result (effect) of evolution as the development of a new species. Both are the result of changes in the distribution and frequncy of genes within the population. So it's not a matter of convenience. It's as much evolution as any of the other examples that have been posted.

My point is that what many people are referring to as "evolution observed" is actually "the results of evolution observed"

[AngryAmish]

44. Is bowling a sport?

I have literally spent hours arguing this in bars.

I need more of a life.

[clydefrand]

50. Evolution is observable in the human species. If you're as

old as I am, you would be able to see the differences of now and 50+ years ago in the shape of people. These differences have been brought about through modernization, through different eating habits, less exercise. Just take a look at the people in this country. There's far more obesity than ever before. I'm among them, but I've been that way since childhood. I've watched with amazement that so many children are now obese as well as adults. I was almost alone in that category when I was growing up. See the difference in Japan's population. They've grown bigger than ever before because of their change in diets.

Another evolving phenomenon: The time of first menstruation. Girls many years ago did not start their periods and develop breasts until much later in their teens than they do now. Some as early as 3rd grade--age 9. Unheard of in my day! Look at boys! They are fathering children as preteens. My husband who will be 70 soon said recently he didn't start having erections until he was 15.

What do you call all of these differences and there are many, many more, if not evolution?

More? We are further causing evolution by engineering new plants by changing their genetic properties to create substances in them, tobacco for example, to make drugs and to make the plants resistant to disease. Look at hybrid plants that may or may not have occured naturally, but they were certainly created by mankind causing them to be different. Look at what has happened to frogs because of pollution. There are tons of examples of evolution occuring all the time; many of them created by natural catastrophes, many caused by mankind's treatment of the environment.

Now our brains should be evolving and we should be able to settle disputes other than war. But then there are some who are still too damn stupid to understand that. Like Bush and his ilk. Just had to get a little shot in there about the devil incarnate.

As for Descartes, I learned about him in the late 50's! Can't say that I can remember much he said. Why don't you tell us oldies who have already forgotten more than many have learned? Remember: Wisdom comes with age to those who open their minds to learn.

[Turbineguy]

89. There also has to be a reason for

evolutionary change it would seem to me. For example if you have a condition passed on genetically, but it can be controlled by medication, the family passing on the condition would not die out. The condition would not be of evolutionary importance.

As humans we are able to shortcircuit natural selection.

It may also be that evolutionary changes occur at a fixed rate. But environmental changes do not. Over many generations bacteria and insects change.

For humans the evolutionary changes would occur between birth and the arrival of offspring. Once you have kids, subsequent changes would be lost. It might very well be that people who had children in their 20's and again in their 60's (it now seems possible) would have two very different siblings.

OK, I'm a machinery guy and out on a limb here.

[dummy-du1]

156. No evolution

I doubt that your observations have anything to do with evolution, because evolutionary effects require many generations. The changes in humans are due to better nutrition and the progress in the medical sciences. The reason for earlier menstruation could also be caused by pollution with chemicals that have hormonic effects. It was observed in fish that the male/female-ratio shifted so much to the female side that the fish were in danger to extinct in certain rivers. This could also be a danger for mankind.

Effects of evolution can be directly observed in the laboratory if species are used that have short generation cycles like bacteria, insects or worms. It was also possible to observe speciation, the splitting of one species in two different, in the laboratory. That would be an example of macroevolution, which is contested vehemently by creationists.

[Francine Frensky]

51. Problem #1: difference between a scientific theory and the word "theory"

people don't have a clue, and taking the creationist fight to school boards instead of scientists shows how desparate these people are.

[randomname]

70. The Real Issue Is

the difference between micro and macro evolution. I don't think that anyone in their right mind could disagree with microevolution, the small changes and mutations that take place over time, that's why we have so many species of dogs, cats, etc... However, to use microevolution as a proof of macroevolution is taking it a little far, seeing as there is no real hard proof of macroevolution. It seems that for every "proof" there is another discrepancy which sheds doubt on the validity of the theory. So let's just keep everything straight since there are many pseudoscientists that want to say that since this bird developed a larger beak over 10,000 years that cats came from dogs or whatever, that is too large a leap in logic and faith for any objective scientist to believe. Without proof of macroevolution, it's just a belief because whereas gravity and physical law can be easily verified and tested, evolution cannot and so until the missing link is found, it's just a belief someone has.

[girl gone mad]

203. This is the correct etymological conundrum.

A scientific theory is not the same as prosecutor's theory or your dad's theory on women drivers.

In fact, a scientific theory, by definition must hold up to rigorous testing and be widely accepted within the scientific community.

[King Coal]

62. Man, I wish I had never started this thread.

What a mess I've made of my life!

[RainDog]

71. for all the reality-based people here

I used to contribute to threads where stupid people who are intent on believing myths and arguing from a point of absolutism insist that their views must be included in issues relating to science.

but then I realized that it's really a waste of my time.

they don't care about reality as it is understood at this time in history, or what science is actually about. or the scientific method. or the different between a scientific theory and a general public's understanding of the word.

they care about imposing their beliefs on everyone.

it has nothing to do with science. it has everything to do with belief systems that are so worthless that they must use totalitarian methods to force others to accept their reality.

think of lysenko and stalin. it's the same mindset. the name of the god is different.

someone should simply compile a fact sheet that debunks all the garbage that spews from fundamentalist mouths and post it, and then forget it. maybe a web page link that posits the arguments and then debunks them.

since they keep inventing more lies, it would have to be updated.

in that way, people who are not educated who honestly seek out information can have access to facts, but the trash talkers wouldn't have a forum for their propaganda.

who the fuck cares what literalists think? you have no credibility.

before you assume too much, know that I was raised in the south as a southern baptist, and the best thing that ever happened to me in my life was to get away from all that and get an honest education.

the south is an embarrassment, as it is currently represented, with its white fundie preachers and its exterminator house leaders and its war criminal president. it's worse than an embarrassment. it's a stain on the reputation of this nation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

75. Fully agreed, and a wonderful point you've proven here.

No matter how many facts or logical deductions you can expound, there are some, even here, that would try to change the facts in order to be right.

[superconnected]

92. actually attacking peoples beliefs, calling them stupid

etc. is all biggotry.

It's as bad as yesterday when someone told me my beliefs made them sick. What ignorance since they had no idea what my beliefs were. I'm a very liberal christian, believe gays should marry, believe in evolution, don't take anything in the old testament as literal or valid.

So to the poster above who called christians stupid and ranted about myths: do you also insult all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddahists? It would be hyppocritical if you didn't.

You named stalin but you are more like Hitler in your intolerance for other people having beliefs that differ from your own. IT's as bad as the fundies.

No wait it's worse. It's an embarassment to have such a biggot also represent democrats. I thought biggots WE'RE mostly fundies.

pathetic.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

107. A belief is stupid when it flies in the face of centuries of science.

I can believe gravity doesn't exist. But I'd be a moron for doing it and there's no reason why I shouldn't be disrespected for believing such a moronic thing. I'm sorry, but calling people on their ignorace is not bigotry.

[RainDog]

127. your post reveals more about you than me

my response was specifically about attempts by fundamentalists (on this board and in American society) who try to insert their religion into science.

I said it's useless to argue with them, and it is. And, yes, I think it's stupid to insist on inserting myth into science.

the reference to stalin and lysenko, in case you don't know, stems from lysenko, a scientist, refusing to accept what was known about science at the time and instead insisting that plants would not compete for resources.

the result was massive famine in Russia, based upon Lysenko's totalitarian mindset applied to science. the statement has a specific reference to science that relates to the issue at hand.

that you would compare someone who is sick of religious absolutists to Hitler is actually pretty funny. I'm Hitler because I'm sick of religious fundamentalists trying to pervert science to fit their beliefs?

okay, you think that if you want to. it seems to me that Hitler was another politician who used bad science and myth and superstition to justify mass murder.

my statement that it's worthless to argue with fundies makes me the equivalent of a mass murderer?

it is not bigotry to express anger at a group who has a specific mission to force their unsupported religious beliefs into science. however, your inability to understand that people find such actions beyond tiresome is your problem, not mine.

and, yes, if other religions had the power in this country to insist on trying to insert their religion into science, I would have the same opinion...that they are stupidly annoying and not worth the time they take.

but it's not those religions that are trying to hijack science to fit their theology in this country.

I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs, no matter what they are (within the bounds of human rights), in their private lives. these beliefs, however, have no place in science education.

I don't represent democrats, fwiw. I am an individual with a set of beliefs, be they religious, political, philosophical, etc. based upon my understanding of the world. I never said that fundies had no right here to post whatever. I just said it's worthless to argue with them.

As a liberal Christian, I find it pretty amazing that you could misread or not understand what I wrote and equate me with Hitler. it seems you are responding more to what someone said to you than what I said. I'm sure Christ would find the Hitler comparison an expression of his love.

[Endangered Specie]

82. A Scientific Theory is VERY different from the everday use of the word...

Scientific theory is a general set of principles, backed up by significant experimentation and scrutiny.


Gravitiy is a theory too, for all we know its a conspiracy by the Jews </sarcasm>

[superconnected]

96. My degree is in computer science - not general science...

The last time I took biology was in the 10th grade. That was a long time ago. I took astronomy in college though. Can't say I'd refute Astronomy or Biology. I wish you guys would quit generalizing and accusing people of shoving their beliefs down your throat when it is you who are insulting and trying to shove your beliefs down theirs - how dare someone have a religous belief and NOT be insulted here.

It really is, just pathetic. I thought this site would be above that.

[Endangered Specie]

99. Science is not a democracy.

[RedCloud]

104. I was a Physical Anthropologist

Evolution is well confirmed by more than a dozen branches of science and should not be shamelessly put on the same playing field as religion, which is total crap, no matter which religion it is.

Religious morans do not study all the many religions before making an "informed" decision. They simply accept the local brainwashed version.

Now we need anthropology, now more than ever. Think of the choices you are given such as, which is your favorite season of the year. ONLY A TRUE PRIMATE GETS IT! It's not winter, spring, summer or fall. A true primate's favorite season is MATING season. Yep, with all the hanky panky and sex signals to induce the mating. Now, do humans have a mating signal? Some say the male gives it when he "rises" to the occasion. I say the female gives a signal, close to ovulation. If you all can convince the religious morans to repent their sinful anti-human, anti-anthropology ways, I'll tell you what it is. 'Til then, this is Red Cloud signing off.

[superconnected]

116. To bad you can't even spell "moron."

You don't have to be religious to be a moron you know.

What I see here is biggotry. I don't see people disputing evolution. I see people who can't tolerate others beliefs and must insult them every chance they get. How horrible to have such a closed mind.

[Endangered Specie]

121. There are plenty of people here disputing evolution.

check the evolution thread from yesterday.

edit: and since you are new here, you should understand that many of us spell it "MORAN" on purpose, its a DU inside joke.

[DrWeird]

122. It's a pun.

That went over your head.

It's not bigotry. It's just making fun of ignorance.

[Felix Mala]

129. But that's what the noisy ignoramuses want

They want equal time for their nonsense.


As Kurt Vonnegut wrote:

"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart."

- Sirens of Titan

[tandot]

136. you might want to consider using the spell checker: bigotry not biggotry

And as to spelling moron as moran ... there is a reason for it ... you'll figure out why if you stick around.

[Beetwasher]

140. Oh? Really? Show Me An Example Of Someone Not Tolerating

Others beliefs, presumably creationism. Put up, where's the example of that?

I tolerate it just fine as long as your not shoving it down mine or my families throat by demanding it be taught in schools as science. That's where I draw the line.

Yet another persecuted christian claiming bigotry because we fight against having their religion forced upon us.

[dummy-du1]

146. No, it's "Moran" with "a"

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm

[Endangered Specie]

108. I would recommend this website...

for people who want to learn what evolution is, and the evidence for it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[ProdigalJunkMail]

112. HOT DAMN...

over 100 responses already and 400+ on the one from yesterday...wheeeeeeeeeeee

theProdigal

[UpsideDownFlag]

133. people are stupid, whiny poopheads.

i guess we got tired of talking about things like winning back america, eh?

[FlaGranny]

142. Actually, evolution

is pretty obvious if you think a little about it. Every vertebrate has identical features. Same number of eyes, same number of limbs (sometimes vestigial), tails (or the vestigial remains of them), ribs, spines, fingers, knees, hips, skin, respiratory system, blood stream. What are the odds of hundreds of thousands of different creatures developing so (nearly) identically? It's so astronomical as to be ridiculous.

Sometimes, as you can see, I like to look at things backwards.

[Liberal Classic]

151. Relativity is a theory, too

Critics of evolutionary theory when they say "it's just a theory" mean something like "it's just a hypothesis."

[opihimoimoi]

153. Like or not, Evolution is for REAL and is a FACT

To avoid Reality and embrace delusion is counter productive to the Human advancement. The result is a course set in self extinction over the long term. There will be no Rapture no Promised Land...only a passing of a species gifted with many opportunities but squandered with poor and wrong decisions.

The Force out there, whether it be a God or not, awaits intelligent species to emerge out of the fog of Life that has conquered the challenge of sustainability and Progress. Those ETs out there should be our allies and friends but we are too warlike and continue to embrace Negativeism leading me to suspect the Human Race will not be among the winners who leave this Universe to reach the "EGG". We are too childlike and will not be able to overcome Delusion and ignorance in time.

[texastoast]

167. Yep

We are some primitive. And we think we are SUCH hot shit.

:eyes:

[DrWeird]

168. I doubt Descartes would be so facetious.

In the context of this particular debate.

[superconnected]

172. the funny thing is

Creationism could end up killing evolution. Think about it, a few well placed nukes in the name of God and 4.5 billion years down the drain.

Then what do you say, creationism was stronger? Or creationism killed itself and evolution in the universe continued... until of course people come out of it again and then comes Gods, and well... get out the nukes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

176. Only if people like you continue to be in charge.

[superconnected]

183. People like who?

You don't even know me. If only people didn't base their opinions on ignorant generalizations.

I'm as liberal as they get. If someone like me were in charge, gays would marry and get full pension benefits, the patriot act would be ended immediately as unconstitutional, education would be over funded and there would be no religion taught in schools - other than classes on ALL religions at the college level that are optional, we wouldn't have the death penalty, and I could keep going on.

Shall I make some generalizations about if you were in charge? It would be just like now only instead of attacking all people who don't think like you do and are not fundamentalists, it would be attacking all people who do not think like you do that aren't athiests. Biggotry would still persist though, it's the same thing just a different name. Is that an accurate generalization?

I hope you don't mind since you're handing generalizations out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

194. I don't buy at all that you're as liberal as you say.

Anyone can SAY they're liberal. That doesn't necessarily make it so. And that's all I will say on the matter.

[regnaD kciN]

202. Sorry, Vash...

...but I've known "superconnected" for years (long before she joined this site), and what she says about her political opinions is dead-on.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

204. Good for you. I don't know you either.

So why am I taking your word for it either?

[regnaD kciN]

205. If you "don't know me either"...

...you certainly a) haven't done a lot of reading of other people's posts here, or b) don't have much memory retention of other poster's names. I've been here since this site was first formed, and have several thousand posts. You might want to search for a few? Try my old handle of "JDWalley" -- you'll find lots of them.

:eyes:

[indigobusiness]

185. Bad Religion/Bad Science/Bad Philosophy/Bad Manners/Bad Theory

Bad Karma.

[RedCloud]

187. Bishops evolve into Primates!

Check it out in your dictionary. Primates have religious power over bishops and I am not just monkeying with you. Go primates, go!

Now if we can get the fundies to evolve into bishops so they can start evolving into beings of higher sentience...

Until then, better back up the truckload of bananas for them.

[indigobusiness]

193. NonCreationist books that hold clues to the Science/God common ground

The Dancing WuLi Masters: An Overview of the New Physics
by Gary Zukav


The Tao of Physics
by FRITJOF CAPRA

First published in 1975, The Tao of Physics rode the wave of fascination in exotic East Asian philosophies. Decades later, it still stands up to scrutiny, explicating not only Eastern philosophies but also how modern physics forces us into conceptions that have remarkable parallels. Covering over 3,000 years of widely divergent traditions across Asia, Capra can't help but blur lines in his generalizations. But the big picture is enough to see the value in them of experiential knowledge, the limits of objectivity, the absence of foundational matter, the interrelation of all things and events, and the fact that process is primary, not things. Capra finds the same notions in modern physics. Those approaching Eastern thought from a background of Western science will find reliable introductions here to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism and learn how commonalities among these systems of thought can offer a sort of philosophical underpinning for modern science. And those approaching modern physics from a background in Eastern mysticism will find precise yet comprehensible descriptions of a Western science that may reinvigorate a hope in the positive potential of scientific knowledge. Whatever your background, The Tao of Physics is a brilliant essay on the meeting of East and West, and on the invaluable possibilities that such a union promises. --Brian Bruya


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570625190/qid=1...

The Web of Life : A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems
by FRITJOF CAPRA

God and the Ways of Knowing
by Jean Danielou, Walter Robert

"It is always dangerous to speak of God" Origen, February 27, 2004

"He is what we say, and yet He is not. He is all that is and nothing that is." Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagite.

"It is true that all we say of Him seems utterly unworthy, in comparison with what He is; and accordingly we fear that what we say may conceal more than it reveals of His nature, and may be more of a hindrance than a help. We should wish, too, after everything we have said, to say the opposite. Because at one and the same time it seems that all we say of Him is true, and also untrue." Danielou's foreword

Is it necessary to speak of God?
"For He is always unknown, He is always paradoxically, well known." J. Danielou adds; "Emmanuel Berl said recently that he had never met an atheist, only men who believe in God, without knowing exactly what they believe."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089870939...

[Squeegee]

206. You obviously misunderstand terminology

Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

Click here for the original source.