Evolution, It's only a theory

Evolution is TECHNICALLY correct. However it's all backwards. We didn't evolve. We did the exact opposite of evolve. We didn't evolve from 'apes'. We evolved from other humans who lived at a time when we were suppose to be 'apes'. Humans who were superior to modern humans in every way; physiologically, mentally, emotionally, etc.

Evolution is a theory. Yes. But often it gets mistaken for scientific fact. (Just look at the way it's taught in schools. It tends to get shoved down students' throats.)

And it could never be a scientific fact because then it conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics.

Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

In many branches of science, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. The concept of entropy is particularly notable as it is applied across physics, information theory and mathematics. In thermodynamics (a branch of physics), entropy, symbolized by S,[3] is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work.[4][5] It is a measure of the disorder of molecules in a system, and is central to the second law of thermodynamics and to the fundamental thermodynamic relation, both of which deal with physical processes and whether they occur unexpectedly. Spontaneous changes in isolated systems occur with an increase in entropy. Unexpected changes tend to average out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how great the unexpected changes are.

The total organization of matter diminishes as it transcends from one state to the next state and so on. But the total amount of matter remains intact.

mainstream science is religious in that it is dogmatic and ignores any thought or evidence that contradicts it.



Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


Allow me to be (Michael) Kelso on THAT '70s SHOW:

BURN!!!

I've been burning the religiosity of lamestream science for about 2 decades. Amen, sir.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by Lightworth]

Originally posted by Clawfoot
Hmm, it seems that the debunking replies have been structured not with evidence against (and I say most not all!) evolution but with questions like, "How come..." and "Why is there...", these replies simply show what research is yet to be carried out which is what science is all about carrying out research with tests and combining these tests with evidence. Similarly, these replies show one reason for Religion's own existence - to explain the unknown with nothing but blind belief and no evidence.

(This is my first post)

let's see, how about the rampant fallacial logic and circular logic used in the argument for evolution? How about upright trees fossilized through multiple strata of rock? how about fossilized whales found in diamataceous earth that should take millions of years to form with the bones being decimated? How about fossils existing at all, if they occur over even tens of thousands of years without the bones crumbling away or being dragged off by other animals. How about dinosaurs not having large enough chest cavaties to support hearts large enough to pump blood to their bodies or muscle density not being enough to support and move their massive frames under current gravitic conditions.

Almost all of currnt science and especially evolutionary science has enough gaping holes in it to make the grand canyon envious. You probably think the grand canyion was formed by the colorado river too don't you? Poor non thinking child. You should really try to think for yourself and wake up. Science is just like religion in that they want to have total control over what you think and believe.

JAden

reply to post by B.A.C.


I wouldn't say you fall into the category of religous nut.
I'd say you are startlingly uneducated in the field of evolution and genetics, but not a nut.

So I basically HAD to respond to your post. Way too many misconceptions, and false statements.

1) Evolution is not observable... okay this is a rediculous statement.
So are you saying that Mendel's super basic experiments with peas is not repeatable or testable in lab??? Ive done it my self, in elementary school.

I think your problem is your grouping evolution into a single event.
Evolution basically is the product of multiple factors interacting, it can happen slowly, or quickly, or seemingly not at all. The horseshoe has changed little in 445 Million years (compared to fossil relatives).

2) Before you can understand the concept of evolution, or even debate it you have to know the factors which are the basis for evolution. Heres a short list of things you should go look up.

Heredity
Genetic Mutation
Genetic Drift
Genetic Recombination
Selection
Genotype
Phenotype
Speciation
Environmental Niches

All scientifically proven (proven in a sense that multiple repeated experiments were conducted and concluded similiar results)

And others. Go read up on the NUMEROUS studies based on these topics.

3) As for missing links. Or TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS as they are known.
Look up, Coelcanthiformes, and Lungfish.
Or if the transitions to tetrapods bores you
maybe you research a little about

(grabbed quickly off wikipedia, your best friend)

# Homo habilis†
# Homo rudolfensis†
# Homo ergaster†
# Homo georgicus†
# Homo erectus†
# Homo cepranensis†
# Homo antecessor†
# Homo heidelbergensis†
# Homo rhodesiensis†
# Homo neanderthalensis†
# Homo sapiens
lastly Homo sapien sapiens (Me and hopefully you too)

Evolution, or what you are referring to as Evolution which is actually *SPECIATION*

Mutations have taken place over time, from our African ancestors we have definately changed over time, genetic mutation, and lack of gene flow in between populations, would explain many of the 'races' we see.

Evolution can happen relatively quickly but by no means is it something that happens regularly. 1000 years is nothing in evolutionary time.


This is the only time I will respond to one of these posts. As i have yet to find someone who has actually researched the topic in depth, or even had a basic understanding of evolution before attempting to debate against it.
And im sorry to say, based on your post. You need to study these topics, and actually have a grasp on the concept.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.

But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]

HOw about any number of inventions by nicola tesla, arguably one of the greatest minds to ever grave planet earth, or a little clerk names Albert Einstein who was ridiculed for years before they accepted his cochamamy theories....


Don't be an imbecile, this is THE definition of mainstream scence. The only historical fact of science is that they are never currently accurate. Hell, now adays they come out almost every year and say we were wrong, but now were right, or we thought we were wrong but now it turns out we were right to begin with. Why not just be honest with yourself and admit that you just really don't know anything for sure and admit that the next guy is just as likely to be right as you are, regardless of how crazy he may sound, in fact if history tells us anything, it's that people who sound the craziest are the most likely to be proven correct later on.


Jaden

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You're right, belief in the big bang and belief in God take an equal amount of faith. Neither side can PROVE the existence of either.

That's why arguments about this are futile.

If you follow simple logic, something cannot come from nothing.

Therefore if I say there is a God, you can say where did he come from?, or if you say the Big Bang happened, I'd say where did the matter come from?

It's almost a paradox.

No they don't actually. Mainly because we have evidence for the big bang. We looked into space and saw it was expanding. This was one of the first observations and pieces of evidence for the big bang. Of course, we have found more evidence for it now.

You cannot compare the two. Science does claim that everything came from a big bang, but it was only meant to explain everything that came after, not before. We don't have a plausible theory as to what happened before it or how it came into existence. There in lies the difference between science and religion - science can say "I don't know" and continue researching until one day we have enough data to answer these questions with confidence.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

Did you read what I wrote? I also admit that I don't know, and can't explain where God came from.

Therefore I wouldn't try to prove it to anyone.

reply to post by Masterjaden


Well thanks for explaining why intact fossil are hard to find. Rarely does an animals remains, remain intact.

But fossil aren't bones. They are imprints of bone.

Soooo....

reply to post by Masterjaden


Of course. They simply trade who's doing their thinking for them the guys in funny hats or robes for the guys in lab coats.



Oh and THIS is a strawman argument, not what that certain member was claiming:

Creation-evolution debate:
Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.
Person B: No, because the universe works too well to be here by pure random chance.
(B has misrepresented A's position and the theory of evolution as a cosmogony).

Person A: Life got here by creation.
Person B: No, the earth could not possibly have been created in 6 24-hour days.
(B is representing A as a young-earth creationist, which is not the only creation theory).

Source: en.wikipedia.org...
For the love of the gods please be familar with the term before you use it.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by sciencenewby

Could god have created us all and everything around us and plugged in evolution to happen... yes

could god still exist and the bible is horse crap? yeap

Thank you. We agree!! Although I feel there is credibility to the Bible and that is: it was a set-up for Christianity. A set-up to fail.

religion is beleiving in something
church is a place where they tell u what to beleive
church made the bible.. and/or used it to control the people... to wage wars... to control wealth...

We again agree except on one major point: religion is not the same as spirituality. How could anything so corrupt to the human spirit and as dangerous of an entity be sanctioned by God? This is where I would agree with atheists and cannot blame them for throwing God out because man has been so brainwashed into believing religion is the carrier of the truth.

Unfortunately, it has become a very black and white issue, an either - or. Whereas, often the real truth lies somewhere in between.

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You're right, belief in the big bang and belief in God take an equal amount of faith. Neither side can PROVE the existence of either.

That's why arguments about this are futile.

If you follow simple logic, something cannot come from nothing.

Therefore if I say there is a God, you can say where did he come from?, or if you say the Big Bang happened, I'd say where did the matter come from?

It's almost a paradox.

No they don't actually. Mainly because we have evidence for the big bang. We looked into space and saw it was expanding. This was one of the first observations and pieces of evidence for the big bang. Of course, we have found more evidence for it now.

You cannot compare the two. Science does claim that everything came from a big bang, but it was only meant to explain everything that came after, not before. We don't have a plausible theory as to what happened before it or how it came into existence. There in lies the difference between science and religion - science can say "I don't know" and continue researching until one day we have enough data to answer these questions with confidence.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

[edit on 2-3-2009 by GeeGee]

First off, we never observed the universe expanding. We noticed a shift to the red in spectroscopic analysis and interpreted it as a sort of dopler shift. That is by no means a proven theory. That is just the best explanation of the apparent red shift in spectroscopic analysis up to this point. We don't even know which stars are farther away or how far away individual stars are to even attempt to corroborate red shift as being a doppler shift and not some unknown phenomena like wave degradation over time or something else. And don't say we know how far away stars are with parallax shift, I'll laugh at you. If you aren't aware of parallax measurement's shortcomings, then you have no ability to think logically for yourself at all.

Jaden

Originally posted by detroitslim

Originally posted by B.A.C.


Pull out a dictionary and look the word "proof" up, that's what I mean. No need for a wall of text.

To jump in here for a moment, the dictionary defines proof as:


1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules to sequentially derived conclusions.
3. A convincing or persuasive demonstration

To the majority in this thread, all of the noted scientific research studies constitute sufficient proof of the theory of evolution.

To you, they seem to constitute a minor validation of a fraction of the theory, but since there are still gaps to be filled in, the bulk of the theory should be regarded as a fiction or an extremely speculative proposition.

What we have is Reasonable Doubt.

No, what you have is reasonable doubt. Which, to the rest of us, looks like an unreasonable attempt to discredit a body of scientific work with a bunch of hot air.

We don't know at all what you believe, because you have put forth nothing but denial and contradictions. You've repeatedly declined to share your personal stand on the matter, to the point of playing quite coyly about what you have or haven't said. Yet, you seem to feel perfectly justified in throwing out an entire school of thought because of perceived gaps.

Your approach is the antithesis of science, and borders on the worship of ignorance. Where you see gaps that discredit the entirety of the theory, scientists see an opportunity to explain the unknown. If the world operated on the principles of logic you demonstrate here, we'd still be in the dark ages thinking that the cure for headaches was to drill a hole in the skull to release evil spirits.

Eventually, science will fill in the gaps that have you in such a disbelieving lather. And when that time comes, your great-great-great-great-great-granchildren will laugh at the silly and primitive beliefs of their forefather.

How many times must I repeat this (my personal stand on the issue).

I agree with parts of evolution, but there are too many holes in the theory (causing reasonable doubt in my mind), for me to believe it.

Clear it up for you?

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.

But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]

HOw about any number of inventions by nicola tesla, arguably one of the greatest minds to ever grave planet earth, or a little clerk names Albert Einstein who was ridiculed for years before they accepted his cochamamy theories....


Don't be an imbecile, this is THE definition of mainstream scence. The only historical fact of science is that they are never currently accurate. Hell, now adays they come out almost every year and say we were wrong, but now were right, or we thought we were wrong but now it turns out we were right to begin with. Why not just be honest with yourself and admit that you just really don't know anything for sure and admit that the next guy is just as likely to be right as you are, regardless of how crazy he may sound, in fact if history tells us anything, it's that people who sound the craziest are the most likely to be proven correct later on.


Jaden

Thank You, you saved me some time by posting this.

reply to post by John Matrix


Oh my jebus
Do you even know what evolution is?

Evolution does not occur as you stated.

From a lower level organism to a higher level. There is no higher or lower level of organism.

Like it doesn't go jellyfish, insect, dog, human.



Its just chance and circumstance.

Originally posted by Freaky

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What I'm saying is that mainstream science would ridicule them for going against them. Journals wouldn't print their research, etc. Happens all the time.

But thats not what you said at all, you said that you would be going against science, not that people would just reject your research.
Happens all the time? List some times its happened.

[edit on 2/3/09 by Freaky]

Going against science in the sense of disagreeing with mainstream science.

Really, let's get serious, did I really have to spell that out for you?

Originally posted by pjmcginty
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

Well thanks for explaining why intact fossil are hard to find. Rarely does an animals remains, remain intact.

But fossil aren't bones. They are imprints of bone.

Soooo....

I was sooo hoping you would say this... so, how about the proven short term fossils under specific conditions where highly mineralized running water is. There are specific conditions where fossilization occurs and a very well documented historical event that can account for everything....

JAden

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.

I believe that evolution is possible, but simians evolving into humans is just ridiculous. No species has made that jump

Are you sure of that?

How can you be?

It is possible that our planet has supported more then one Sentient species.

The fossil record is only a tiny percentage of the life on this planet. If Humans were to go "poof" right now, in 65 million years Earths next custodians will probably have no inkling we were ever here.

What you label as "Ridiculous" as I label as "Truth".

Simians are quite smart. One of the biggest differences between them and the humans is that humans can communicate and learn much more precisely. No species has made that jump.

You don't see an eloquent, industrious, super-smart mosquito or bird or even dolphin. Yes, dolphins are smart, but they can't rub two sticks together to make a fire, or shape a piece of wood into a blunt object to threaten other dolphins. Chimpanzees are smart and agile, but they can't tell you how to get to the best fruit without yelling a bunch of meaningless chatter and having to lead everyone else by physically walking over to the location.

Hominids were also hunters, and before a hunt they would draw what they wanted to catch on rocks or cave walls. That's how they taught themselves how to write.

Another feature of humans: they know how to take concepts like eating and having sex, and complicating them until they become a damn treasure hunt, with a map and everything. When they give up on searching for the treasure -- or realize that the "treasure" is simply a better way to have sex -- they have something to pass down to future generations as a way for them to occupy their time as well.

In the vein of bombing on mainstream science and those that think only truth comes from it.

Funny thing about "peer review" it's pretty much another word for politics. Given the nature of the human animal. A PhD doesn't make one ascend beyond being human.

reply to post by Masterjaden


"Mainstream science" is just generally accepted theories and ideas by majority of the scientific community.

Nothing is ever written in stone.
There is NO "we were right, now were wrong, now were right"
There IS improvements and new found evidence

Science in itself, is never accepting something as 100% truth.
Science is the observable and testable, and retestable.
Thats it.
Its not a dogma, its not a religion.

Maybe its portrayed in media articles and tv.

But i have never read a scientific journal that claims it knows all the answers.
Always is science looking for new ways to prove themselves wrong.
At least that is what science is meant to be.

There will always be problems with the observer.
Usually purposeful problems are caused by hubris of an individual or group thereof.

Evolution isn't nearly complete, but based on scientific research (repeated, observable experiments) it is the most probable answer to our question.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by reasoner

 

A religion is a systematic expression of personal convictions.

None of those things disproved my argument.

It's a religion because every new theory has to be blessed by the clergy.

I think you may be confusing Christianity with Religion. Many of the world's religions do not have "clergy".

I also believe you have confused a key point. You seem to consider something a religion if it has some method of officially deciding which positions it adopts, involving specially trained and authorizes specialists. Not only is this a characteristic of only some religions, such "quality control" is not unique to religion.

However more directly relevant is that the methods by which the specialists *decide* which beliefs to accept into the fold are critically different in science and religion. That difference is the very essence of what makes science what it is, not just a coincidental or inconsequential difference.

In science, there is great emphasis on evidence and reason, with reality feedback from the physical universe sought and valued whenever possible. Unsupported "faith" is derogated rather than praised as more pure and holy than requiring evidence. While there is indeed a social process of filtering (a low pass filter of sorts, slowing fast change), even the most hallowed authorities can be overridden by a sufficient accumulation of facts.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
If it doesn't support the existing model, then you have to engage in completely unrelated things like political maneuvering to get it accepted.

This "have to" is pretty demonstrably false. All you need is to have enough scientific facts, and some time for those facts to wear down the resistance. I agree that there is a type of conservatism, where incumbent theories have an advantage over challengers. Humans are not 100% rational, and science is done by humans. Yet many challengers nevertheless win out every year, in the journals. Science that is based on politics will not stand scrutiny.

Take tectonic plate theory, which radically challenged the established geologic theories within living memory - but the evidence became too strong and it is now accepted. No "political maneuvering" was needed, just evidence. Echolocation in bats and sea mammals were challengers at one time. Relativity and quantum mechanics were resisted. In fact, a great deal of what we know in science today survived this struggle to overcome the previously held theories. And a great number of false hypotheses failed to overcome existing theories as well.

That's not how religion works. Some religions may indeed require obligatory political maneuvering, which you seem to be promoting as a characteristic of religions shared by science. If so, that's because evidence based reality feedback is not part of their methodology. Nor need it be; but is is for science.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
This is how "the scientific consensus" got anthropogenic global warming to be accepted.

You are correct that AGW is a highly politicised topic (by both sides) and that has affected the science - but those politics have been one of the special challenges to doing good science in that field, specifically because the politics are directly antithetical to good science - rather than the political maneuvering being the essence to good science. You have it 180 degrees wrong; politics is sand in the gears of science, not grease. The less politics, the better the science.

But in the end, real science will win out. The only problem with regard to AGW is the sense of urgency, the need to make large scale decisions soon rather than just letting the scientists battle it out in their hallways for another decade or two. Eventually real sciecne will still win tho

reasoner