It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution is only a fact, not theory!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

A "theory" in science is a framework, that must be falsifiable ..................... It has withstood falsifiable tests and continues to do so,


There is so much wrong with your logic that I dont know where to start, but I do know that the first thing I want to do is ask you what good would falsifiable tests to for anything?


You can show a theory/hypothesis to be wrong?


My understanding of science is that you want verifiable tests.
He is saying you want falsifiable tests.
Is my understanding of wrong?




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
"Evolution is a theory, not a fact" I can't stand seeing people make this arguement. It Why don't people do some research before posting this kind of garbage.


Funny guy.
The only FACT here is that Evolution is a theory. Natural selection is a fact. But one species of animal evolving into a totally different species is NOT a known fact (yet).


If anything, people should be saying "Evolution is a fact, not theory" ....


Why don't people do some research before posting this kind of garbage?

See? I can say it too.


For the record -- I don't care what God used to make us .. evolution or creation. It makes no difference to me because I know that He had His hand in it no matter what method He decided to use.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Neither were observed, neither can be recreated in experiments, both require faith. Examples of mutation or adaptation are far from evidence of macro evolution occurring.
Let's see examples of one species changing into another in the fossil record. Statistically speaking, it would require every bit as much of a miracle for the Big Bang ---> Evolution ----> modern day species to occur, as for an intelligent designer to create complex organisms, and ensure that the Earth was in the proper location w/ the correct atmosphere, to support life. Just my .02.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Quick question: Can you elaborate on this?

"Evolution is an observed peice of information and therefore makes it a fact."

In other words, what is the observed [emperical] fact of "evolution" in the sense you use the term here?

Not trying to be an anti-semantic bastard or anything... honest injun. But if you're saying what I think you are nobody (creationists of any stripe included) would argue with you. Making your point/post moot, which leads me to think I've misunderstood you.

Hence my: care to elaborate? Thanks in advance.


Regards,
-Rob


the OP is confused

I think what he ment was Evolution is a theory... there are no facts in Science. Even Gravity is a theory that cannot be proven without a doubt.

Evolution is a theory because of the astounding evidence presented to make it so. It is however NOT a fact.

Creationism is a HYPOTHESIS and is NOT a theory due to lack of scientific backing, lack of evidence.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
My understanding of science is that you want verifiable tests.
He is saying you want falsifiable tests.
Is my understanding of wrong?


It's basically a case of never being able to absolutely prove a theory/hypothesis, but you can absolutely disprove it.

Experiments can support a theory/hypotheses but they don't really ever prove them to be true. It's a philosophical position based on logic, a single verified falsified experiment is fatal to a theory (well, almost, depends on whether it can be adjusted to fit the new knowledge).

This is why certain claims (such as intelligent design) are not science, we can't falsify the hypothesis.

Read a bit of Karl Popper.

ABE: OK, great example here...


Evolution and Creationism are both theories


The difference is that we can falsify evolutionary theory. However, we have essentially already falsified YEC creationism. But, unless testable and flasifiable claims are made, we can never falsify all forms of creationism. FlyersFan shows why, that is, it doesn't matter what the science shows, god still did it. You can apply this wherever and whenever, making it an essentially useless concept in science.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
melatonin

Ai, Ai, Ai, another scientist sells his soul for jebus...


Just can't help yourself can you mel? This guy is an expert in the field but his opinion must be based on his belief in Jesus. "Sold his soul," come on man your better than that. Have you looked at his background? He's certainly qualified to speak on this without having his integrity impuned... this aint PT. If he's wrong than make your case... when/if we get that topic going. The "jebus/sold his soul" crap because you disagree with his science based argument just makes you look petty and small mate



I'm quite sure that monculture studies consistently show the acquisition of resistance de novo, this cannot occur by HGT, these changes must have been mutations.

Link? I guess this would be a good O&C topic when/if one of us has the time or inclination to write it up. We can go 'round and 'round and hopefully, without the atheist critic's talking points/rhetoric (brainwashed, delusional, lying etc, etc)



Well, I think you're right that linking the horse series is, in essence, theoretical (i.e. the mechanism that links them). The mechanism of evolution is what is regarded as theory. The data is fact.


Exactlly what I said, is it not? Why don't you guys jump on such posts (as the OP's) when it comes from a Darwinian (or whatever is the preferred PC term) like you would a creationist who states false or mis-leading info? I realize this (bio/evo) is outside of your area of expertise but a PhD qualifies you as a philosopher of science, correct? Nothing about my original post is innacurate in that regard. I didn't defend, or make any argument what-so-ever in favor of, creationism. Why pussy-foot around Mel? Nobody's gonna mistake you for a theist buddy. My link was to make a point not an argument, perhaps I wasn't clear... obviously.

I still love ya man. Reading your stuff is like... well it's like a big hug with words.




ABE2: I think Gould put it best...


So you, via Gould, are arguing that common descent is a fact not a theory? You just said I was correct about it being theoretical, no... maybe it is me who's confused wouldn't be the first time. Guess I wasn't doing as well as I thought I was after all.

Where's mattison when you need him?

Apples fall and man is an evolved primate, both are emperical fact? Just so we're clear. Evolution is a fact... now give the definition for that "evolution." I got the apples already. No quotes or links (you guys are pulling that off the same TO page fwiw) necessary, the short, in your own words, definition of "evolution," again the fact part equal to the fact that when I let this apple go it will fall. This TO page gives several definitions none are described as fact. All those, listed on the page as acceptable, would not make common ancestry a fact but a theory or inference, no?

Luda


I fail to see where I have made "fundamental" errors and don't see any irony at all in my replies and comments. Please point them out when you get back.


#1 - Anyone who knows science and argues with it on their side would never make the ridiculous statement "Evolution is a theory and not a fact".

I'll concede, for discussion sake, I may have jumped the gun. See my last comments to melatonin. Also consider:
From the Berkeley site: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory — a "guess" or "hunch." Calls evolution a theory and distinquishes it from "everyday common" usuage but does not elevate common ancestry to fact. You're not arguing against people who say "it's just a theory" if you were your post would make sense. You've called it a fact and said anyone who disagrees doesn't understand science. I disagree with the latter (your position) not the former.

Here the actionbioscience page lists many "facts" which all deal with similarities. Still leaves, imo, common ancestry as a theory or an inference based on these facts/observations. The only fact I find on that page, that requires no additional interpretation (ie, they stand on their own) is:
"The genetic similarity between species"

From that fact you can infer a theory of common descent. Understand the distinction?

The other contradictory statement you made that I called Ironic was here where you first stated:

"evolution of the horse is a fact"

And then just below, prior to an 'ex' quote from TO you say:

"Here is a noteworthy quote from talkorigins regarding the falsifiability of the evolution of the horse"

See it now? You can't falsify a fact. An emperical observation is what it is, ala a fact. Can't falsify those, only ideas, hypothesis and theories. How about this: Can I falsify this observation: When I release my grip of an apple it will fall to the ground? Again I'm not arguing against CD (horses or apes) here just your classifing it as an observed (of course these fossils are millions of years old) emperical fact instead of a theory.



You are merely spreading misinformation when it comes to what is "fact" and what is "theory" in science.


Come on kettle you're black.
Sincerley yours,
-Pot


I am not arguing a personal point here, but a scientific one which many people, like yourself, seem to be confused about. Forget what you think "fact" and "theory" means and do some research like I have. Forget the everyday, common knowledge, meaning of the words 'fact' and 'theory'.


Cool know need to get personal, agreed. Should we compare pics of our bookshelves so we can determine who has done more research or is more informed? I was using "fact, theory and hypothesis" in the philosophy of science sense of the meaning. Not my "theory" on how to make the best tuna fish sandwhich or the "fact" that Mrs. Rren is the sexiest woman alive. I was clear it was you who was ambigous all while chastizing others for confusing the terms. Isn't it ironic, dontcha think, a little tooo ironic. Yeah I really do think. It's like rainnnn... yeah, yeah ok I'll quit.





I am going to repeat my point once again:

Evolution is happening and has been happening for millions of years. This is known to be true, and as such is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution goes about describing the mechanism which dictates the process of evolution. This is what people need to be arguing against, if anything. It is the mechanism(theory) which is subject to arguing, not the observation that it is happening.


The "millions of years" of observation? Or the inference? Take your time let it sink in...

I think many scientists would be suprised to find out that common ancestry is a fact and not a theory or collection of hypotheses. Can we freeze the phylogenetic tree where it is right now? When was it set in stone ie, when did it leave the realm of hypothesis/theory and become scientific fact?
From wiki 'tree' link:

The data on which they are based is noisy; horizontal gene transfer[9], hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences can all confound the analysis. One method of analysis implemented in the program PhyloCode does not assume a tree structure to avoid these limitations.


Perhaps only the apes are fact? Reminder: At no time did I argue against common ancestry only the "fact" that you've conflated the theory with scientific fact.


(Hope you have a good time tonight)


Thanks man I will. Sorry for the fluff post but finished shopping early and had time to kill before she gets here. It was this or t.v. Ya'll got a good 24hrs to rip me to shreds and I'll see if I can pick up the pieces tommorrow.

Apologies for the initial flack apparently this is not as cut & dry as I assumed. I am fairly well read on the subject, for a layman, believe it or not... like I said thought I'd even have melatonin with me on this one. He's a cool guy but I'm a theist/progressive creationist and he's an atheist/neoDarwinian. I was excited about the possibility of coming out on the same side of one of these threads... alas not to be.


Have fun guys... go easy WWJD?
-Rob



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
i'm going to disagree here
facts are the products of tests
you do a test and you get a result and the result is a fact

drop an orange
measure the time it took to hit the ground
factor in the difference
you get the fact of the rate of falling


now, there are some tests that show microevolution is a fact


however, the general theory of evolution will never be a fact, just like every single other theory in history will never really be a fact



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Just can't help yourself can you mel? This guy is an expert in the field but his opinion must be based on his belief in Jesus. "Sold his soul," come on man your better than that. Have you looked at his background? He's certainly qualified to speak on this without having his integrity impuned... this aint PT. If he's wrong than make your case... when/if we get that topic going. The "jebus/sold his soul" crap because you disagree with his science based argument just makes you look petty and small mate


It's hard to have respect for someone who wields his lofty qualifications like he is and makes pretty basic errors. I did make my case. For monoculture and development of resistance, a 1952 article...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

I have a similar sort of respect for the likes of Jonathan Wells.


Exactlly what I said, is it not?


Aye, I was sort of agreeing with you. I think universal common descent is essentially a theory, however, descent and modification is a fact. The further in the past we go, the more we descend into more speculative status. Thus I do think it is a fact we descended from a proto-ape ancestor.

Gould basically defines 'fact' as a scientific fact - well supported (rather than 100% truth). The definitive theory here is Darwinian mechanisms (not ignoring non-darwinian mechanisms of course).

It's really just another area that can complicate things, just a semantic issue (which is why I wanted to see where this thread was headed).


Why don't you guys jump on such posts (as the OP's) when it comes from a Darwinian (or whatever is the preferred PC term) like you would a creationist who states false or mis-leading info? I realize this (bio/evo) is outside of your area of expertise but a PhD qualifies you as a philosopher of science, correct? Nothing about my original post is innacurate in that regard. I didn't defend, or make any argument what-so-ever in favor of, creationism. Why pussy-foot around Mel? Nobody's gonna mistake you for a theist buddy. My link was to make a point not an argument, perhaps I wasn't clear... obviously.


Nah, I had no gripe with you at all. Just the info from this Anderson guy.

I was interested to see where the OP was going, he seemed to know enough to not make elementary mistakes.

Well, doctor of philosophy, or just a lab workhorse, depends on your viewpoint, heheh. I tend to be stuck in my own little area of research.


I still love ya man. Reading your stuff is like... well it's like a big hug with words.


Heh, stop it


I do respect you Rren. You have a good way about you, you are intellectually honest.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Can't similar animals simply be similar animals? Did they necessarily have to evolve? Seriously.

Sure, evolution could occur, but how can we look at similar animals and assume that they have evolved from one another?

Look at some of the dog breeds today. Many of them are different, but similar. And not because they evolved that way, but because they were breed that way.

Look at what we do with plants. Man has been creating different plants and varieties of plants for years now. Open a seed and plant book, and you will see new plants, that didn't exist before. Evolution had no hand in it.

There are fruit plants that are even mixed, so you might have an apple mixed with a pair. Years from now we could be looking at the fossil record and see this "in-between" (pear/apple) plant and make the assumption that pears evolved from apples, but it would be an untrue assumption.

Again, sure, evolution could certainy happen, but it isn't the only possibility.

Troy



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
All science is theory.

Therefore, by making this thread to say otherwise, you're being anti-scientific. Not very smart.

We've never seen a population evolve before. Never. Not once. Fossil records are great, but aren't definitive, as they're not very reliable (the chances of something being fossilized is astronomically low, and certain species would naturally be more prone to such a situation than others).

So it's the best possible explanation humans can think up, yes, but it's far from proven true, and far from being complete.


You can't be serious on this. We have seen Galapagos Finch populations evolve into incredibly different species for over a period of twenty years now, as a measure of adaptation to changing environmental conditions. The isolation that the archipelago provides is invaluable, and most of the evolutionary processes that occur on those islands are rarely reproduced elsewhere. Though, it is solid evidence. We've seen this process with genera of lizard and butterflies in the last twenty years as well. I'd suggest you look into the subject a little more. There are, supposedly, circumstances which drive species backward in evolution.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Can't similar animals simply be similar animals? Did they necessarily have to evolve? Seriously.


well, if you have an alternate scientific explaination, i'd be happy to hear it



Sure, evolution could occur, but how can we look at similar animals and assume that they have evolved from one another?

Look at some of the dog breeds today. Many of them are different, but similar. And not because they evolved that way, but because they were breed that way.


artifical selection is considered a form of evolution
howevere, the domesticated dog isn't a collection of seperate species
a chihuahua and a chow are the exact same species



Look at what we do with plants. Man has been creating different plants and varieties of plants for years now. Open a seed and plant book, and you will see new plants, that didn't exist before. Evolution had no hand in it.


unless you consider that artificial selection can be seen as a form of evolution



There are fruit plants that are even mixed, so you might have an apple mixed with a pair. Years from now we could be looking at the fossil record and see this "in-between" (pear/apple) plant and make the assumption that pears evolved from apples, but it would be an untrue assumption.


not really
we'd be able to understand from the DNA structures of the plants (monsanto has quite a record for this stuff) that they aren't genetically related



Again, sure, evolution could certainy happen, but it isn't the only possibility.
Troy


it's all fine and good to poke at a theory, it makes it stronger
but you've yet to put forth an alternative explaination



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
To address one of the above, dogs all belong to a clade of genetically similar mammals, in the family Canidae. If you saw evolution as a path, one could pinpoint the position in time by which each different species of dog decided to follow that path. Each successive species would have shared characteristics derived from the previous. You are totally right in this regard. You can't, though, compare evolution to genetic hybridization (artificial selection) in such a short period of 40,000 years (approx. time of human community?) because there isn't anything to compare. Your talking about genetic changes brought out by the provision of static evolutionary environment for dogs, being companions of humans for so long. The evolution of dog and plant has to be looked at way beyond what you percieve today. Evolution is the driving force which allowed what would become the plant to develop core organelles to collect energy from ambient sources, or possibly the development of a structure which suited the mutual interaction of two specie..., and the connection of virulence between different species. We have observed the latter many, many times.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
You can't be serious on this. We have seen Galapagos Finch populations evolve into incredibly different species for over a period of twenty years now, as a measure of adaptation to changing environmental conditions. The isolation that the archipelago provides is invaluable, and most of the evolutionary processes that occur on those islands are rarely reproduced elsewhere. Though, it is solid evidence. We've seen this process with genera of lizard and butterflies in the last twenty years as well. I'd suggest you look into the subject a little more. There are, supposedly, circumstances which drive species backward in evolution.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by cognoscente]


No, we've seen different variations of finch. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but as far as I know, we haven't watched one species of finch turn into another species of finch.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente

You can't be serious on this. We have seen Galapagos Finch populations evolve into incredibly different species for over a period of twenty years now


Simply absurd.
A more rounded beak or bigger toes does not a new species make.
This is the classic evolutionists mistake.
Never has one species 'evolved' into another species.
Its doesnt happen, never.
Dont give me the crap about drug resistant bacteria.
Have you ever heard 'What doesnt kill you only makes you stronger'.
That doesnt mean you change into a different species.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
First post, so please forgive me if it's a bit on the weak-sauce side.

I haven't seen anyone mention fethered dinosaur fossils.

Feathers (half way down the page)

and

Bird connection

since there has been so much talk about inferred proof of species change.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Simply absurd.
A more rounded beak or bigger toes does not a new species make.
This is the classic evolutionists mistake.
Never has one species 'evolved' into another species.
Its doesnt happen, never.


Define species...



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Define species...


i can tackle this one

textbook definition:
members of the same genus that can only produce viable fertile offspring with each other

or there is the more precise genetic definition, but i haven't a clue on that one

11Bravo, do you have a different definition?

[edit on 2/14/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Not to muddy up the water here but I think a couple of other points are in order here. My first point may not be exactly on track with the subject but the undertones of the post by Ludacris justify it I think.

When speaking of Evolution vs. Creationism does one being a fact necessarily mean that the other is either theory or false? It is entirely possible for both to be fact and or theory at the same time. If Creationism is based on Biblical Scripture the only statement made is that Man (mankind) was created from the dust. Darwinism implies we evolved from the dust. If this universe in which we live was also a creation the Creator is responsible for the laws under which it exists and would be bound by those laws by design. The Creator would follow, or use those laws in the creation of Mankind. In other words: Mankind, would have been created by the Creator, through Natural Evolution, making both Evolution and Creation a fact. (I know, I know Bad Grammar!)

My second point would be about Language being in a constant state of evolution itself. In my 50+ years on this Earth, the meaning of words and phrases has changed dramatically in a relatively short period of time. We were simply taught that a Fact is a theory that has been proven and that Theory was an idea that had merit based on observation. It’s just not that simple anymore in the world of “that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is”. Two people could reasonably use either the words theory or fact to describe the same concept and neither person would be wrong. That being true and I think it is, this whole conversation is an exercise in futility with no possibility of a definitive answer possible. If two people order the same meal and one says “that is the best meal I’ve ever eaten” and the other says “that is the worst meal I’ve ever eaten” both are stating facts even though they are saying the opposite. When discussing Evolution vs. Creationism, I think the same is true as both sides honestly believe they are stating facts.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Abbadon777
First post, so please forgive me if it's a bit on the weak-sauce side.

I haven't seen anyone mention fethered dinosaur fossils.

Feathers (half way down the page)

and

Bird connection

since there has been so much talk about inferred proof of species change.





Welcome to the boards.

I read your links.
The second link mentions a 'general consensus' and 'theory'.
'General consensus' and 'theory' are not fact, its that simple.

There is no documentation in all of the history of science of one species evolving into another species.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
There is no documentation in all of the history of science of one species evolving into another species.



well, i might be able to disprove that
HOWEVER, as mel pointed out
first i need to have a clear and concise definition of what YOU would consider a species



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join