Originally posted by mattison0992The antibiotic resources we have available are not as prolific as you have indicated.
I did not say that they were currently ‘available’. Since ‘available’ only applies to FDA approved antibiotics, yes you are correct there are
not many today. I was implying that our research will go on (however slow or clandestine) to find and utilize each and every antibiotic and bacteria
until there are no more unknowns (might as well be forever) until we find something better. Possibly genetic engineering of various resistance/curing
tactics. I can assure you the research is far greater then the information given out. It is push comes to shove. Pharmaceutical research and
development projects are not titled by numbers just to make tracking them easier, it is to help to maintain the secrecy of the product. But the bottom
line hold up is money. The legal, chronological and financial layout in developing and bringing a completely new pharmaceutical product to the market
is prohibitive for large corporations. The smaller companies need investors, it’s all money. This is in addition to the enormous influence that the
government’s have to suddenly stifle or otherwise stymie things like proprietary ccine production in order to use the same validated process to
produce their researched product. This can cause a major logistical set back. Such situations have shut down pharmaceutical production long enough for
their money-making patients to expire and then so to does the research that it supported. In reality there have not been many antibiotics going up to
the FDA for approval (for human use) but that does not exemplify what research is going on.
Originally posted by mattison0992A common misconception and popular argument that is not correct. Antibiotic resistance has always
existed. It existed prior to the 'invention' of antibiotics. You can't have antibiotics without resistance genes. As long as there have been
antibiotics there have been resistance genes. Proliferation of antibiotic resistance is nothing more than reshuffling of pre-existing genetic
material. It doesn't 'evolve.'
Please provide a reference and
Please let the following three sources know of their errors.
wikipedia
When evolution is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new
species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new species of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibiotics which had been lethal to prior
strains. en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution: (not ToE)
www.talkorigins.org... evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations"
cdc.gov Resistance to quinolones occurs through chromosomal mutations in the genes
Your reply is Straw Man Logic
Describing a mechanism of evolution does not disprove it. Go-ahead reshuffle pre-existing genetic material that is part of evolution. Is it your
position that bacterial evolution doesn’t happen or do you just not like adhering to the current definition shown above? You want to explain
what/why/how pre-existing genetic material gave bacteria the need to have the ability to breakdown Nylon?
Originally posted by mattison0992You can't have antibiotics without resistance genes. As long as there have been antibiotics there have
been resistance genes.
This implies a conflict with your previous comment about the proliferation antibiotic resources. Now you are claiming (without references) that
antibiotics basically are as prolific as the bacteria with resistant genes. Which is almost endless. I’m sure numerous studies of Precambrian
bacteria will help trace it all back to a common ancestor as you appear to support in some weird way.
whyfiles.org...
Now you are giving me support to say that the antibiotics are as plentiful as the bacteria they fight and how the ToE can be used to make predictions
for today’s medicine.
Which is what I have been saying in so many ways.
Originally posted by mattison0992It doesn't 'evolve.'
octavia.zoology.washington.edu...
Sure the observable evolution of bacteria may have been predominantly by horizontal gene movement but this does not alter the basis by which
‘evolution’ was determined, basic heritable changes. Recombination still does occur and in exclusive populations the gene path is not always
reproducible as the exclusive mutations cause permanent changes relating the environmental influences to that particular population. When and if the
populations ever mix again they may not be able to reestablish historic traits to sustain a viable population against a repeat enemy or each other.
Yes one population may even borrow the resistance from another. This is part of natural selection. Whether or not it comes around again is also
irrelevant.
quote: It might say that these people have been exposed to hazardous chemicals in their drinking water. It might alert you to the fact that human
hormone disrupter medications that were rejected by the FDA are currently used as platisizers in standard plastic food packages. These
hormone/plastisizers are fat-soluble. Without the accurate biological knowledge to test peoples blood for chemical contamination you wouldn’t know
how prevent additional people from getting the same thing. With out correct biological knowledge we wouldn’t know what causes or encourages
incurable necrotizing faceitis. Without empirical knowledge of bacteria no one would even know that it is not a mystical affliction
Originally posted by mattison0992
Exactly, but it has nothing to do with either evolution or ToE.
Your reply is Straw Man Logic
There was no intent to show that, because you asked what it said about our biological knowledge and what narcotizing faceitis said about our
biological knowledge. You did not ask what either had to do with evolution or ToE.
But anyway, yes it does have to do with evolution.
www.stanford.edu...
This is from your NewScientist magazine reference. “How chemicals can speed up evolution”
www.newscientist.com...
Necrotizing Faceitis is a factor in Natural Selection. That is part of the ToE.
The ToE does not alone rely on biology. Natural Selection has to do with improving the continuation of allies. What ever is done to make sure your
offspring survive improves the chances of carrying on your genes, your bloodline so to speak. Humans slowly started to improve their chances of
success by improving their world. They first had to figure out basic skills to pass on to their offspring thus giving them a head start to make
further advances. Sociocultural Evolution extrapolates out from ‘fitness’ of one bloodline and deals with the population. Instructions and advice
is passed on through the generations so that the next generation will be able to make improvements from that point forward and will not make the same
mistakes. This builds up indefinitely. Everything we learn is a stepping-stone to know more. This started from the day we learned to communicate with
each other. The knowledge that the human species has right now has been accumulating for the last 65 million years. Accumulative knowledge. Natural
Selection. Fitness. Evolution of improved fitness. Survival of the ‘fittest’ (to use a poor phrase). Anything that improves the chances that your
allies will carry on to the next generation is part of the natural selection theory. Even death. This definitely falls into the ToE. Sociocultural
Evolution. Anthropology.
Originally posted by mattison0992
originally posted by Gravityisatheory
It also indicates that you missed understood the quote you used.
This is an incorrect use of the term ToE. Theories do not directly contribute anything they make predictions as it says in the quote.
Then this is news to the evolutionary biologists who use ToE to make predictions about the world. Perhaps you followed the saga of one of the most
recent transitional fossils to be found. Evolutionary Biologists PREDICTED they would find such a fossil in such a location based on a
multidisciplinary analysis of ToE. IOW, they used ToE to PREDICT they would find such a fossil in such a location.
More Straw Man Logic
You didn’t comprehend the quote not just once but twice. Or is this just ignorance?
That’s what I said, specifically I said that the “ToE…Theories….make predictions”!!
Which one of the words in my quote threw you off?
Now, you are clearly in full support of what I said in the quote and providing an example no less. Most of the time you are trying to show me wrong
but here you are saying the exact same thing. You appear very confused.
You asked for “things that the ToE” contributed to medicine. The ToE doesn’t directly contribute to medicine it makes predictions. That’s one
of the way theories are suppose to work. Thanks (I think) for expanding my point.
originally posted by GravityisatheoryBut to address the intent
Describe three (3) things the evolution has contributed to medicine?
1) Genomics, en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by mattison0992 Genomics arose out of the field of biochemistry and subsequently spawned the field of molecular
biology. It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory.
More Straw Man Logic
Where in my quote did I say “evolutionary theory”?
I didn’t
I said evolution.
Originally posted by mattison0992 It didn't arise out of evolutionary theory
More Straw Man Logic
No kidding. I never suggest that it did. You would understand more if you would learn the vocabulary. The field of biochemistry supports the ToE. The
reverse is not true, how astute. The field of biochemistry supports medicine. Medicine pays for the biochemistry.
www.talkorigins.org...
Biochemistry used for numerous purposes including medical purposes that validates the biochemistry by replication, by successful application.
It is the last step in verifying the tools, method, theories and concepts are right, replication. When using biochemistry to examine prehistoric life,
the ToE can be used to make predictions. One part of ToE that is used is simply ‘evolution’. If you can’t use biochemistry in today’s world
then there is no way you could understand and interpret the results of biochemistry used to study pre-historic life. Therefore biochemistry supports
ToE, very simple.
More Straw Man Logic
You are refuting claims involving evolution by saying that they did not arise out of ToE. That Is Correct they did not. It is the other way around.
The Theory of Evolution arose in part by the Fact of Evolution before that it was just the general biological theory or a group disassociated theories
with minimal disciplines.
If there were no evolution demonstrated in the genes then we wouldn’t have a need for Genomics in the first place because there would be no reason
to study genes. But we know that the genes are a dynamic part of ‘life’. The study of the fact of evolution gives us grounds to determine
inheritance and trace genetic factors such as disease pervasiveness, resistance, susceptibility, etc. This is all done to improve the chances of the
survival of our offspring. This again is the ‘fitness’ portion of natural selection.
Originally posted by mattison0992 They are not a product of ToE.
More Straw Man Logic
Of course not, that is not what I said, I said evolution contributed,
Originally posted by mattison0992 ToE doesn't 'predict' these things.
More Straw Man Logic
Of course not that is not what I said, I said evolution contributed. The ToE is used to make predictions.
Originally posted by
mattison0992]IOW, they used ToE to PREDICT”.
Originally posted by mattison0992 How does this assist the medical field? It doesn't.
Are you kidding? All correct (not falsified or made up) medical biological knowledge is beneficial. It reduces the number of unknowns that need to be
questioned and/or solved.
Originally posted by mattison0992 This is molecular biology. This has nothing to do with ToE. Chromosomal translocations and other
abnormalities saying nothing of ToE. ToE didn't discover these, biochemists did. ToE doesn't 'predict' these things.
More Straw Man Logic
I didn’t say the ToE discovered anything. The ToE didn’t discover, it is used to predict. There is a difference between evolution and the ToE. Why
do you know about Chromosomal Translocations and abnormalities? Why should anyone care? Don’t you think there’s a benefit to studying these
things? Are there not heritable things being passed to the next generation? That is called evolution. What does the study of molecular biology have in
common with paleontology and biogeography? The ToE, they support it.
“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” Theodosius Dobzhansky
This quote has been out there quite a while and I don’t see anyone stepping up to say it’s wrong. Except you! To me (and I know you are going to
hammer me on this) this means that biology supports Evolution. Since Evolution is a huge portion of the Theory of Evolution, Biology also supports The
Theory of Evolution. Seams very simple.
The ToE is just a categorization of long standing existing biology facts and theories now used to study past life. It is not a new or independent
field of study. It is a grouping of existing empirical sciences. Molecular Biology is part of ToE as are the majority of all the other biological
disciplines. They now have split them out to specific evolutionary biology grouping. Called evolutionary biology.
Originally posted by mattison0992
This is just penny ante semantics and changes nothing.
originally posted by mattison0992
Lots of things in biology are wrong... we discover this everyday.
originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Really, humor me name one. Considering the enormously broad range of disciplines within biology find one thing that has been found as absolutely wrong
after passing a peer reviewed study.
A list like this could get long very quickly.
Perhaps you didn't see this article that came out last year.
External Source
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design,
researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.
If you really want an extensive list, we can do that too.
Extensive list? What list are you talking about? You have gotten one thing. You haven’t satisfied the request. It was to find one thing in biology
that was first shown right by the scientific method (including peer review) and then later showing it wrong. How does someone’s biased/incompetent
research findings in any way show any part of biology wrong? What textbooks need to be re-written? What you have shown is that there are bad studies
done by dishonest and incompetent people (some of them may be scientists) that produce false findings. Welcome to press releases and publishing perks,
that’s the game. You have to start somewhere and get the information out for review. That’s why we have the peer review process. The science world
knows that the actual publishing is to be ‘taken with a grain of salt’.
To weed out the bad research and bogus studies, they are scrutinized and reviewed and examined. From that same article; "We should accept that most
research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,"
“Replicated” and “validated”. It is a fundamental part of the process. You think one or two research papers adds to biology or any science?
It is the topic of the work, the end resulting contribution that is the thing. As in all empirical science proofs, it must go through the scientific
method. This is part of the process of which peer review is only a small portion.
Originally posted by mattison0992
You obviously don't understand the process of peer review. Often times this 'rigorous' process amounts to review by one or two other scientists who
have a whole stack of stuff they're reviewing in addition to their own research. Most scientists don't operate on the 'theory' level, and aren't
out to prove things wrong. For the most part they are locked into their own specific sub-category of their sub-discipline, and don't really think
about the big picture. Rocking the boat is no way to ensure future funding or future publication. In fact, history has demonstrated that articles that
are true but go against popular theories are disproportionately rejected.
No, I don’t understand your shortsighted comprehension of it. Nor do I understand your intension of giving a false impression of it. It is primarily
performed by the publisher (which can be a department of people). “often times” is a very misleading term within the context you use it. Part of
what makes it a rigorous process is because of the availability of qualified reviewers. Since they have a professional involvement with the subject
they are very concerned how publication will affect their field of study. Perhaps you should read the rest of the article you sighted. Additionally it
is anonymous, it doesn’t come back to you, sure you may know what company or department the work has gone but you really don’t know who the
reviewers are or how many. But that is all irrelevant peer review is only a small step in validating anything, demonstration of repeatability and
validity is required before acceptance. Any scientist knows that it must be shown valid by the scientific method, this is a given. Even if your
opinion of the peer review process is right the negligence of few insecure scientists or the collaboration of several connected mostly by money will
not change the field of biology.
en.wikipedia.org...
Instead of supporting bogus claims about daily errors in biology, the topic has been switched to something you claim to know about, peer review.
Apparently your understanding of it (in addition to your reference from the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece ) is how to
participate in false studies, get them published with false data and obtain misguided funding. Is this something you know by first hand experience?
I can’t imagine how anyone with even the slightest amount of logic could consider a peer-reviewed publication as proof of anything. The purpose of
peer-reviews is to remove crackpots and obvious frauds. It does just that. It may not be perfect but neither is weather reporting and we aren’t
getting rid of that.
The reason I mentioned peer review was twofold. One, looking at the substance of your comments there is a question of your qualification for
discussing any physical science. Most people understand that peer-review is only a very small portion of the big picture in order for anything to
become ‘accepted’ as part of ‘biology’ or any physical science. The scientific method is the big picture.
When I asked for something in biology that had passed a peer review study, you decided to use Straw Man Logic and instead of addressing the main topic
‘biology’ you went for the peer review comment. This thing (theory, claim, hypothesis, method, etc.) must first go through the ‘scientific
method’ of validation, of which peer-review is only a very small part, before it can become any part of any empirical science, any real scientist
would know this. Instead of showing something wrong in biology, you make up things to support the well-known fact that peer review is not perfect and
it is only what you make of it. Peer review was never intended to provide proof, people read into it further than they should. But, now I know the
whole scientific method is new to you.
Secondly, I was hoping to encourage you to provide a solid reference for your exaggerated claims. I asked you to find something in ‘biology’ you
instead found an article that basically says that people lie for different reasons. The world has long known this. That is why things must be checked
out before being accepted as part of any science. Even the writer of this article knows this as they quoted “We should accept that most research
findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery.”
Your reference fails to shown any part of biology wrong. It doesn’t even talk about biology. I’m surprised you didn’t provide a reference to a
specific theory that was shown as false only by new technology and knowledge and not by the level of knowledge at the time, like the theory of
spontaneous generation or amputations for infections. But ok you’ve shown that there are confused people out there in the world and we should be
cautious.
Originally posted by mattison0992
Originally posted by Gravityisatheory 4) How about a whole site of contributions.
evolution.berkeley.edu...
Actually this site doesn't deal with 'evolutionary contributions to medicine,' it deals with 'evolutionary concerns' within medicine, that is
drug resistance in pathogens etc, as well as the genetic basis for a couple of diseases. If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes
evolve resistance,' then that's not much of a contribution. How does this assist the medical field? It doesn't.
More Straw Man Logic
“This is just penny ante semantics and changes nothing.”
Evolutionary concerns within medicine? That means that evolution is important to medicine. What’s your point? That site is referenced by the
talkorigins page, you know the one where you said none of it was in dispute.
So the alternate basis of your logic is, since you don’t understand it, it must be false. There are an enormous amount of medical evolutionary
studies because they are so intertwined. The field(s) is still very young.
You really are oblivious to the obvious.
www.sciencemag.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www-personal.umich.edu...
www.rci.rutgers.edu...
www.newswise.com...
www.uchospitals.edu...
evonet.sdsc.edu...
“Knowledge of evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships has helped to guide research scientists to the discovery of natural compounds useful in
biomedical research.”
Originally posted by mattison0992
Actually this site doesn't deal with 'evolutionary contributions to medicine,' it deals with 'evolutionary concerns' within medicine,
Actually you don’t appear to understand it.
What does the university of Berkeley know anyway? The nerve of them putting up a page titled;
“Relevance of evolution: medicine
by the Understanding Evolution team”
Who care that studying the historical path of mutation to a gene called CCR5 will lead to a cure for HIV? That’s not a contribution to medicine
right?
Originally posted by mattison0992
If evolutions big contribution to medicine is that 'microbes evolve resistance,'
You said, “They don’t evolve”, you need to make up your mind.
originally posted by Gravityisatheory6) Even drugs; Digitalis, morphine, quinine, and ephedrine are all modern medicines that have been
passed down to us from prehistoric signature practice.
Originally posted by mattison0992
Okay, but this has NOTHING to do with ToE.
NATURAL SELECTION!!
It is absolutely part of ToE. It has nothing to do with direct biological evolution. It is part of natural selection. Much more complicated when
talking about humans. What group do you think has a better chance of offspring survival? The ones with medical knowledge and abilities or the ones
without it? If faith healers refuses to give simple medical treatment to their offspring the chances of their genes continuing through to the next few
generations is significantly reduced. That is natural selection at work.
originally posted by Gravityisatheory
· The understanding of cellular variation
· www.talkorigins.org...
Originally posted by mattison0992 None of this is in dispute.
Obviously you either didn’t read it or don’t understand any of it!!
I’ve been reiterating this information repetitively only to you have you refute it. You appear to be resistive to all it says. IE not open minded IE
not capable of being objective IE stuck on blind faith.
From TalkOrigins The ToE… “It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.”
This means that biology supports ToE. All fields of biology. Including medical fields of biology. Thus Medicine as part of biology falls under that
umbrella. Medicine supports ToE, very simple.
Originally posted by mattison0992 None of this is in dispute.
From TalkOrigins the Fact of Evolution “Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology”
I guess it is a huge leap of faith to believe that modern biology is also the cornerstone of modern Medicine. Right?
Originally posted by mattison0992 Medicine deals with observable measurable, confirmable concepts, while ToE deals in speculation and
inference. The two are not even remotely comparable.
Now it is clear what the problem is. You have absolutely no idea what a theory is. This is way over your head. That explains why all of your replies
miss the point entirely. You need to abandon your layman’s definition of a theory because it is absolutely wrong under the context of any physical
science. You should drop your guise as a scientist, no competent scientist in any empirical science would use this definition.
From TalkOrigins “It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella.”
“Reproductive success (fitness) has two components; direct fitness and indirect fitness. Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on
average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing. Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical
to its own it helps to enter the gene pool. Direct fitness plus indirect fitness is inclusive fitness. J. B. S. Haldane once remarked he would gladly
drown, if by doing so he saved two siblings or eight cousins. Each of his siblings would share one half his alleles; his cousins, one eighth. They
could potentially add as many of his alleles to the gene pool as he could.”
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
You don’t think that modern medicine has any effect on reproductive success? Or that human intervention has affected Natural Selection from
extinctions to captivity, slavery and breeding. Artificial Selection is part of Natural Selection.
Natural Selection deals with improving the success of offspring. Hospitals do that. They use biology of which (as you say is not in dispute from
talkorigins) evolution is the cornerstone. Therefore they are part of the whole picture of ‘fitness’.
originally posted by Gravityisatheory
But this is not the point I am making. We know what “certain aspects” of the biological theories are correct (an be it known that this comprises
an enormous number theories within an enormous number of biological disciplines) and our repeated successful use of many of them in medicine
re-enforces that.
Originally posted by mattison0992 Nothing done in medicine 'reinforces ToE.' It doesn't happen.
More Straw Man Logic
That is very nice. How is that applicable to what you quoted?
Originally posted by mattison0992 “ToE can't be proven by it's very nature.”
More Straw Man Logic
No kidding, I never said otherwise. If proven it would be fact not theory.
“ToE is NOT used in medicine.”
Not directly. Biological theories are used in medicine. The ToE includes those theories.
Originally posted by mattison0992 Medicine deals with observable measurable, confirmable concepts, while ToE deals in speculation and
inference. The two are not even remotely comparable.
Details of the past also hold explanatory power in biology
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Like the hypothesis that a historical resistant gene has given 20% of Europe resistivity to HIV.
Seams to me that if the ToE has explanatory power in biology it also has it in medicine.
Originally posted by mattison0992 “ If rabbit fossils were found in Pre-Cambrian rock tomorrow, it would be devastating for ToE and
the theory of common descent. However, it wouldn’t make other fossils 'wrong,' they still are what they are, it would just make the interpretation
of the evidence wrong. If evolution is wrong, a number of inferences are wrong, …. the only thing that loses is evolutionary biology.”
NO. You have no idea what evolutionary biology is!
Absolutely not, and for some of the reasons you have sited.
“that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings
false.”
First it would have absolutely nothing to do with the fact of evolution, this would be dealing with the Theory of Evolution. Secondly theories are out
there to be modified that does not make them entirely wrong. Third, you would need to prove it was part of the same biological ‘tree’, otherwise
it would not affect the theory of common descent what so ever. There is no reason to believe it all started from a singular event. Forth, even if you
could say this was proof of spontaneous generation and orthogenesis, it would not in any way harm the ToE, it would become part of it.
FACT: If you found a rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rock and attempted to bring it forward you would be committing professional suicide.
In fact, history has demonstrated that articles that are true but go against popular theories are disproportionately rejected.
You would need a lot of proof before anyone would hear you. You would need a fantastic theory before anyone would even consider believing you. You
would have to prove that it was insitu. You would have to prove that that chuck of rock couldn’t possibly carried here as part of one of the impact
theories. There may be a chunk of Precambrian rock with a rabbit fossil on the dark side of the moon as well. You would have to prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that the fossils could not be faked. You would have to use the scientific method to study it and a sample size of ‘one’ is almost
worthless, because it proves nothing. If you can be so extreme as to offer a rabbit in Precambrian rock example then there must be leeway for extreme
explanations such as there are more than just one habitable evolving places in the universe and some of them get destroyed and scattered across
multiple universes. You can’t possibly bring down ToE. You could seriously trim it but you can’t stop it. Because as you know what we have as fact
still remains as fact and our explanations of things we understand still remains. Such a find would just be an unknown piece of a puzzle.
Suppose you could prove from this rabbit fossil (aside from the unexplained age and location), suppose you could show that is was nothing other than a
digestive track for any bacteria possible and a whole bunch of stem cells with blank DNA. That would certainly affect the course of future biology. It
would trim but it would not bring down ToE, that’s the nature of the theory.
I don’t care if you find a fountain pen in a Precambrian rock. It would not amount to a drop of water in the ocean. It would be just like finishing
a huge one of a kind billion-piece puzzle of the New York City skyline and finding one additional puzzle piece that is obviously part of Mickey
Mouse’s nose. What effect would that additional piece have on the rest of the puzzle? None. One in a billion. That piece is obviously part of a
different puzzle. You can take it back and investigate, throw it away or hold on to it until you learn more. You would not throw away or even change
the whole completed puzzle and say that it now all-worthless because we can’t figure out this one piece.
Someday you may find that there was a whole other billion-piece puzzle behind this one. The piece you have is just left over. Perhaps this planet was
“seeded” with life from the prokaryotes, eukaryotes and bacterial survivors that lived in the digestive tract of that rabbit before it was rapidly
fossilized by the process of its world being scattered about. A few of the Precambrian rocks slammed into this planet and the result was evolution. By
golly that rabbit was the biological “Adam”. Where’s that fountain pen?
Originally posted by mattison0992
1. This isn't my area of expertise.
2. I couldn't care less.
Right. After demonstrating it, confessing your ignorance is appropriate.
Your blind faith has made you so closed minded and biased that you can’t see the forest through the trees.
evonet.sdsc.edu...
When biologists refer to the theory of evolution, they use the word "theory" as it is used throughout science. It does not mean a mere
speculation or an unsupported hypothesis. Rather, as The Oxford English Dictionary puts it, "a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by
observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of the general laws, principles, or causes of
something known or observed" (our italics). The complex body of principles that explain evolutionary change is a theory in the same sense as
"quantum theory" in physics or "atomic theory" in chemistry: it has been developed from evidence, tested, and refined, and it accounts for
literally thousands of observations made throughout the entirety of biological science and paleontology.
Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is a current best explanation. It has withstood innumerable tests and attempts to disprove it,
but it is still being refined, modified in the light of new knowledge, and extended to account for newly discovered phenomena. The theory of genetics
has had such a history, progressing from Mendel's simple early principles to the complex body of molecular principles that constitute today's theory
of inheritance, and it is constantly being refined and modified, even though its core principles have remained valid for a century. So it is with the
theory of evolution.
Biologists accept as fact that all organisms, living and extinct, have descended, with innumerable changes, from one or at most a few original forms
of life. For Darwin in 1859, this was a hypothesis, for which he provided abundant evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, behavior,
agriculture, paleontology, and the geographic distributions of organisms. Since that time, all of the many thousands of observations in each of these
areas have supported Darwin's core hypothesis. To these observations has been added copious evidence that Darwin could hardly have dreamed of,
especially from paleontology and molecular biology. A century's accumulation of such evidence establishes descent, with modification, from common
ancestors as a fact of science. How we explain this fact—what the principles and causes of it may be—is the theory of evolutionary process, parts
of which are subject to various amounts of scientific debate, modification, and extension.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
