Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 1
63
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+45 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
The purpose of this thread is to help clarify what a scientific theory is and what it isn't. Most people who think that they disagree with the theory of evolution don't actually understand what it is and how it works. I want to specifically address the argument that we shouldn't believe in evolution becuase it's 'only a theory.'



Creationists exploit the meaning of theory as though it were only blind speculation like their own position is. But a scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. In most instances, a theory is a field of study. For example Cell Theory, would you say that cells aren’t an established scientific fact because they’re called “theory” too? So what does theory mean. To some people happen to think theory means guess. Anybody can sit around and go i have a theory why the x-men series is the best cartoon ever, but that's not what a scientific theory is - it doesn't mean the same thing at all. A scientific theory is not a random guess thrown out into space, A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact. Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.

Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all


Why saying evolution is "Just a theory" proves you are ignorant


www.cesame-nm.org...


Those who favor teaching alternatives to evolution in public school science classes often argue that evolution is "only a theory". The argument probably stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" and "fact" in science, as opposed to the meaning in everyday life.

In everyday life, a "theory" often means a vague fuzzy concept with a suggestion of uncertainty and guesswork. "Theory" can imply an impractical idea that does not always work out. However, in science a theory is a consistent framework that explains observed facts and predicts other facts. A scientific theory must be consistent with all relevant facts.


www.talkorigins.org...


A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.


www.geocities.com...


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

This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models.

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

Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Flagged. Thank you sir, for denying ignorance ! Best of luck with the religious nuts, they shouldn't be long now...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
starred and flagged.

This is a good thread, there's no reason that we should overlook the way in which we came to be what we are just on some blind faith.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond


In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab.

The Missing Links, where are they? If evolution were true where are all these skeletons that are halfway through evolving? There are none.

Even today, this world is filled with simple one-cell structured living organisms. Why didn't they evolve?

What about the written record? The cuneiform writing system originated perhaps around 2900 BC, if man has been here evolving for so long, why don't we see evidence of it?

Why don't we see new species emerging? There should be new species evolving before our very eyes, where are they? Instead we see the extinction of species. Has evolution now stopped?

Answer these questions for me.

God Bless



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The same logic can be applied to creation/ID theory as well. Where are all the "new" species? Did the designer get bored? We should see new life forms spontaneously appear fully formed and ready to rumble. But we don't.

Why?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The same logic can be applied to creation/ID theory as well. Where are all the "new" species? Did the designer get bored? We should see new life forms spontaneously appear fully formed and ready to rumble. But we don't.

Why?


No the same logic cannot be applied. Who said God is continuing to create? The OP makes a claim for evolution, I asked some questions based on his claim.

No one claimed God continues to create new species. So how can you ask for answers of a claim that hasn't been made? First you need a question, then you ask for answers.

Why side step my simple questions?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


This topic has been beat to death. But you stated evolution is not observable nor testable. I disagree. I won't bore readers of the thread with the overwhelming evidence available. I think that the burden is on you to back up the statement that nothing in the theory of evolution is testable.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


This topic has been beat to death. But you stated evolution is not observable nor testable. I disagree. I won't bore readers of the thread with the overwhelming evidence available. I think that the burden is on you to back up the statement that nothing in the theory of evolution is testable.


How is the burden on me? I said it isn't testable, prove me wrong. No need to bore the readers, just give me one example of how it is testable.

Let's say my premise is that gravity isn't testable. You could drop a brick on my foot, and I'd have to agree the test worked, no?

Same thing.




[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


How about years of genetic testing for one example? How about years of studying the fossil records for another? And in turn if you have sources concerning any kind of tests/research on ID provide them so that I can compare data.

Also check out this thread for plenty of links to sources that might have information you're interested in:

abovetopsecret.com........

Also....you have your beliefs and I have mine. Even with plenty of evidence I doubt seriously it would change your view of the world. (and yes I'm "assuming" due to your avatar and your sig...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


How about years of genetic testing for one example? How about years of studying the fossil records for another? And in turn if you have sources concerning any kind of tests/research on ID provide them so that I can compare data.

Also check out this thread for plenty of links to sources that might have information you're interested in:

abovetopsecret.com........

[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


None of these show how evolution is testable.

I'll show an example, we'll go with General Relativity. My premise is that a true theory or law is testable.

The tests of general relativity included:[9]

* General relativity accounts for the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.2
* The prediction that time runs slower at lower potentials has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, the Hafele-Keating experiment, and the GPS.
* The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Eddington in 1919.[10][11] The Newtonian corpuscular theory also predicted a lesser deflection of light, but Eddington found that the results of the expedition confirmed the predictions of general relativity over those of the Newtonian theory. However this interpretation of the results was later disputed.[12] More recent tests using radio interferometric measurements of quasars passing behind the Sun have more accurately and consistently confirmed the deflection of light to the degree predicted by general relativity.[13] See also gravitational lensing.
* The time delay of light passing close to a massive object was first identified by Irwin Shapiro in 1964 in interplanetary spacecraft signals.
* Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars.
* Alexander Friedmann in 1922 found that Einstein equations have non-stationary solutions (even in the presence of the cosmological constant). In 1927 Georges Lemaître showed that static solutions of the Einstein equations, which are possible in the presence of the cosmological constant, are unstable, and therefore the static universe envisioned by Einstein could not exist. Later, in 1931, Einstein himself agreed with the results of Friedmann and Lemaître. Thus general relativity predicted that the Universe had to be non-static—it had to either expand or contract. The expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 confirmed this prediction.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

That wasn't so hard to show, was it?

Now do the same with evolution.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Yeah well when you provide a theory that has been proven true and then ask me to prove another theory where all the facts aren't known that's what is commonly known as a straw man setup.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Yeah well when you provide a theory that has been proven true and then ask me to prove another theory where all the facts aren't known that's what is commonly known as a straw man setup.


No I didn't refute General Relativity, I confirmed it (look up Straw Man), the OP's whole premise is that theories are more than speculation, which in most cases I agree with.

In the case of evolution the facts aren't known, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Point made.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
What I said was ALL the facts aren't known. That in and of itself disproves nothing.

Again misrepresenting my statements are a set up for a straw man argument.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Genetics and evolution are intricately linked. You can't have one without the other. If there is no such thing as evolution, then you can't say your children look like you or cousin Robert looks like uncle Joe. You couldn't have dog breeds, you wouldn't have a variety of anything.The result would be rather a completely random showing of traits. You would have no idea what your children were going to look like, I presume. Though I can't imagine how things would work without genetics.

Now I know you are going to argue that God created genetics, but if you go by the bible, the earth is only a few thousand years old. Meaning that gentics and recent evolution had to of occurred in a very short period of time, that we would of been witnessed to.

I am sure if someone saw a lizard change into a bird, which in compressed evolution would of happened in a week, they would of said something.

Evolution isn't just about creating something, it is about eliminating too.

The fact is, more ancient civilizations are being discovered all the time, the pre date the bible. The evolutionary gaps are being filled constantly.

How do explain the recent discovery of 1.5 million year old footprints? And God putting them there isn't an answer, because you have to proove it.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
What I said was ALL the facts aren't known. That in and of itself disproves nothing.

Again misrepresenting my statements are a set up for a straw man argument.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]


OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

Is this a setup too



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I don't have time right now to give a thesis on how evolution is happening even as I type this, but I will make one example that should be easily understood. Later, I will come back with more.

Let's look at viruses. We all know that they mutate constantly, I hope. When these mutations occur, sometimes the virus will take on a trait that will allow it to adapt to resistances or jump to a new type of host. This is evolution.

There have been other more complex organisms that have also mutated to better adapt to their environment and we have documented it. I will be back later with this evidence. It is well past bedtime for me.

I am not saying Darwin was 100% correct. The theory of evolution has itself evolved since then. I am also not trying to dispel creation. I feel people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, lack of evidence or not. I will not infringe on anyones right to believe.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Genetics and evolution are intricately linked. You can't have one without the other. If there is no such thing as evolution, then you can't say your children look like you or cousin Robert looks like uncle Joe. You couldn't have dog breeds, you wouldn't have a variety of anything.The result would be rather a completely random showing of traits. You would have no idea what your children were going to look like, I presume. Though I can't imagine how things would work without genetics.

Now I know you are going to argue that God created genetics, but if you go by the bible, the earth is only a few thousand years old. Meaning that gentics and recent evolution had to of occurred in a very short period of time, that we would of been witnessed to.

I am sure if someone saw a lizard change into a bird, which in compressed evolution would of happened in a week, they would of said something.

Evolution isn't just about creating something, it is about eliminating too.

The fact is, more ancient civilizations are being discovered all the time, the pre date the bible. The evolutionary gaps are being filled constantly.

How do explain the recent discovery of 1.5 million year old footprints? And God putting them there isn't an answer, because you have to proove it.





Here we go again, where in the bible does it say the earth is only a few thousand years old. Nowhere.

I haven't mentioned God at all. There is no need.

You can't prove evolution, the same as I can't prove God to you.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.[18] The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.


I took this from wikipedia as you quote it yourself. So I assume you believe what the pedia says



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory.[18] The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.


I took this from wikipedia as you quote it yourself. So I assume you believe what the pedia says


I believe I included a link to show I didn't edit anything.

Link please.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


wikipedia link:


evolution theory and fact: wikipedia link

scroll down to the comparison of gravity and evolution. since that's the example you made earlier


[edit on 2-3-2009 by griffinrl]






top topics



 
63
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join