Evolution, It's only a theory

You are absolutely right. Many people act as monkey - but monkey never will turn into human.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You didn't even quote properly

Calling me stupid was a personal attack

My point is that science is neither perfect, infallible or complete. Treating it as so amounts to exercising faith

Sorry who are you talking to ??
Just wondering

That was in response to your post.
I was giving you a chance to fix the quoting

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You didn't even quote properly

Calling me stupid was a personal attack

My point is that science is neither perfect, infallible or complete. Treating it as so amounts to exercising faith

Sorry who are you talking to ??
Just wondering

But I didn't call you stupid ????
That confuses me ?????
Where did you get that from?????

That was in response to your post.
I was giving you a chance to fix the quoting

Originally posted by jfj123

But I didn't call you stupid ????
That confuses me ?????
Where did you get that from?????

You said I "don't understand" that simple arithmetic is fundamental to all of the sciences.

I asserted earlier, however, that quantum physics is challenging older assumptions about the properties of matter

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by jfj123

But I didn't call you stupid ????
That confuses me ?????
Where did you get that from?????

You said I "don't understand" that simple arithmetic is fundamental to all of the sciences.

I asserted earlier, however, that quantum physics is challenging older assumptions about the properties of matter

This is EXACTLY what I said

sorry but nonsense.
IF we couldn't prove 2+2=4, then our whole system of math would be wrong and everything based on math would not be able to exist such as cars, computers, buildings, etc...
Science is not built on faith. Your failure to understand this, doesn't change the reality of it

Notice where the word stupid is nowhere to be found?
My point was that we have an understanding of math and how it works. If we didn't we'd still be living in caves. It's that simple.

Great thread and some fantastic points, so far… Starred and Flagged

There are some really beautiful friendships developing on this thread lol or should I say evolving lol (j/k)

I agree that the word "theory" can sometimes be confused with a scientific theory among people who are not scientifically minded or who are unaware of what a scientific theory actually is. They tend to think of a theory in layman’s terms i.e. just a theory or an idea. As the video in OP’s post rightly points out, a scientific theory has gone through a stringent process known as “peer review” and hasn’t just become a scientific theory lightly or by some off the cuff suggestion. lol

Ok, so we are talking about the “theory of evolution” and whether or not it is a scientific theory. By science’s own method of determining what a scientific theory is, the “theory of evolution” is, a scientific theory because it has gone through and passed its processes.

Is the scientific “theory of evolution” a fact?
This is a difficult question to answer, I would say that evolution i.e. life that has developed over a long period of time, is a fact, but that the scientific theory to explain that fact (how it works), is not a proven fact in itself or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.

The observably facts in gravity can be completely observed and the scientific theory that explains gravity, most people would agree (and myself of course) that it is a proven fact. The big question is, have we been able to observe all of the observable facts (like we have with gravity) regarding evolution? I personally would say no, we haven’t. Doe’s this mean I don’t value the “theory of evolution.” No, I do value it as a scientific theory but not as a scientific fact.

Science has proven many things to be facts but sometimes science can only show us, what is most probable. Although having said all this, I would still say that the “theory of evolution” is the best scientific theory we have to go on, at this moment in time but that like most scientific theories, it is always going to subject to possible change or improvement, in light of new discoveries in the future. If the "theory of evolution" is or becomes a proven fact, it is not necessarily in conflict with there being a God, creator, higher power or a higher consciousness.


PS – I’m not a creationist lol



- JC

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

What is the problem here?

The problem is that people cannot believe in the junk science of evolution without attacking or denying the existance of God. (not a proven fact by the way----you have been brain washed into believing it is a proven fact).

You cannot staddle both sides of the fence on this issue by thinking God is behind evolution. That is just absurd.

If you don't stand for the creator behind the creation, then you will fall for anything, including falling for something as profoundly ignorant as believing evolution is a proven fact, when in FACT it is not.

The above quote ISN'T my post. You either changed the name, or made some sort of mistake copying it.

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

Originally posted by Joecroft
Great thread and some fantastic points, so far… Starred and Flagged

There are some really beautiful friendships developing on this thread lol

or should I say evolving lol (j/k)

I agree that the word "theory" can sometimes be confused with a scientific theory among people who are not scientifically minded or who are unaware of what a scientific theory actually is. They tend to think of a theory in layman’s terms i.e. just a theory or an idea. As the video in OP’s post rightly points out, a scientific theory has gone through a stringent process known as “peer review” and hasn’t just become a scientific theory lightly or by some off the cuff suggestion. lol

Ok, so we are talking about the “theory of evolution” and whether or not it is a scientific theory. By science’s own method of determining what a scientific theory is, the “theory of evolution” is, a scientific theory because it has gone through and passed its processes.

Is the scientific “theory of evolution” a fact?
This is a difficult question to answer, I would say that evolution i.e. life that has developed over a long period of time, is a fact, but that the scientific theory to explain that fact (how it works), is not a proven fact in itself or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.

The observably facts in gravity can be completely observed and the scientific theory that explains gravity, most people would agree (and myself of course) that it is a proven fact. The big question is, have we been able to observe all of the observable facts (like we have with gravity) regarding evolution? I personally would say no, we haven’t. Doe’s this mean I don’t value the “theory of evolution.” No, I do value it as a scientific theory but not as a scientific fact.

Science has proven many things to be facts but sometimes science can only show us, what is most probable. Although having said all this, I would still say that the “theory of evolution” is the best scientific theory we have to go on, at this moment in time but that like most scientific theories, it is always going to subject to possible change or improvement, in light of new discoveries in the future. If the "theory of evolution" is or becomes a proven fact, it is not necessarily in conflict with there being a God, creator, higher power or a higher consciousness.


PS – I’m not a creationist lol

- JC

Excellent post. I agree the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation.

Probable, but not yet fact.

The whole problem I have with the majority of evolutionists on this thread is that they claim it is an absolute fact.

You MUST be a creationist, you disagreed. LOL j/k

Starred.

Evolution's a fact not theory. It's everything else that poses the problem, supporting it.
Decoy

reply to post by B.A.C.



I swear to God (oops lol (j/k)) I’m not a creationist.

Thanks for the star and for the “Excellent post” compliment.

I read through most of the thread and I must say that, defending yourself from five different posters at once and holding your own, while simultaneously working on your own stuff, is what I call “excellent” lol …well done…



- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


I don't think any of you are getting it - Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

www.talkorigins.org...

There are readers …. who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some ....point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.


Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

[edit on 3-3-2009 by andre18]

Where Goosebumps put here to test our faith?

I'm sorry, but your conclusion Evolution is a scientific theory/fact is absolutely ridiculous, because there is ZERO transitional evidence from this to thus in the archeological records... Just peoples beliefs and made up science… It truly is Amazing science gets to force this nonsense onto the world!

I mean using that logic then the Bible is absolute proof God created everything. I mean, the stories written within the Bible seem to support the archeological finds, let alone the historical documents. So therefore God has been proven!!! NO? HMM!

I know I'm not going to convince you your belief are absolutely wrong, just like I'm sure you’re aware I am absolutely convinced there is no evidence to even remotely prove evolution... The supposed/laughable, “evidence,” for Evolution is no more scientific proof then the stories that have been proven to be true in the Bible proves there is a God...

And No... I don't accept Intelligent Design either... There is not enough evidence for either BELIEF... I ponder both and read both concepts and any new, “evidence“, however for me the jury is still way out there... Both are nothing but beliefs, or more correctly both are nothing but peoples’ religion, period… regardless of how many people want to call Evolution a fact. It most certainly is NOT!

If people were to learn the truth about the history of Evolution verse Intelligent Design they would learn I.D. does not have all the lies, forgeries, and hoaxes that have been force feed to children and adults time after time by people who claim to be objectionable scientist. It truly is laughable… Everything that was once hailed as proof of Evolution has been proven to be horrible fakes, hoaxes, and purposeful blatant lies.

If you want a great laugh, I mean this stuff is hilarious, not to mention a continued embarrassment for Evolution, then read about the history of this pathetic wannabe science. The lies, hoaxes, and forgeries, each of those stains/disgraces towards science continue to plague Evolution from damn near its concept to present day.

What’s even more hilarious, if any other theory had these many embarrassments purposeful lies as Evolution has, they would have been discarded/abandoned a long time ago... But people have got to believe in something, even if that something truly equals nothing...just like evolution equals nothing!

Go learn the history of Evolution and all the lies, hoaxes and forgeries that have been forced onto the world, it truly is Funny Stuff people still believe in and Evolution is still called a credible science! Tiz Damn funny!

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 3-3-2009 by littlebunny]

Originally posted by littlebunny
I'm sorry, but your conclusion Evolution is a scientific theory/fact is absolutely ridiculous, because there is ZERO transitional evidence from this to thus in the archeological records... Just peoples beliefs and made up science… It truly is Amazing science gets to force this nonsense onto the world!

Why do people think there are no transitional fossils?

Ambulocetus
Archaeopteryx
Tiktaalik

[edit on 3-3-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Why do people think there are no transitional fossils?

Ambulocetus
Archaeopteryx
Tiktaalik

None of these links are proof! They are fossils, painted birds and prints of creatures that existed, that those who believe in Evolution say are transitional or proof of such. But they most certainly are not proof of transitional anything, nor are they absolute proof of anything other then these separate creatures existed at one time, anything else is pure conjecture!

Where is the transition from having legs to only having back legs and no front legs. From having legs to a blow hole on top of the head and no nose, where are those fossils... Oh that's right they don't exist.

What about that bird, that was painted and made up as a best guess, not a fact! The link itself even says it has more to do with dinosaurs then today’s modern birds... However, where is the transition or evolutionary changes from what it looks like in that picture, to all the fossils showing the changes per evolutionary upgrade? That's right they don't exist!

And that foot print looking thingy, that don't prove anything at all... That's like saying there is proof Loch Ness and Big Foot exist and an entire science is created by the belief both must be true because people have faded or blurred pictures.

What I mean by transition is this... IF evolution is true there should/must be fossil records showing the complete transformation from this to thus. But guess what… They don't exist. Not for a single animal/creature.

The fossil records, to date, shows without question animals and all creatures under the Sun just showed up out of nowhere. That's what the evidence shows. Now that does not prove there is a god, just like it does not prove evolution.

Evolution is simply a belief system. I wish one of you did have the proof... It would be awesome to finally know... Sadly that is not the case, so go ahead and believe what you want... But don't say one is a better belief system because this new religion called Evolution has a little bit of evidence and a lot of conjecture so therefore it must be true. I won't believe anything simply because science or religion says to with zero proof!

--Charles Marcello


[edit on 3-3-2009 by littlebunny]

alright listen,

most people consider micro-evolution a fact. It can be readily observed and tested.

however, the means by which micro-evolution operates are theoretical.

macro-evolution is a theory. It can not be readily observed and tested.

the means by which macro-evolution operates are theorized

so stop saying that evolution is a fact. because it is certainly not. The essence of the theory is completely based on ground and consequence.

Macro-evolution is a theory based on the theoretical mechanisms of micro-evolution. AKA not a fact, not even close.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by JPhish]

First of all, I am not claiming that evolution is 100% correct. However, evolution does present a hell of a lot more evidence than religion does concerning where life originated. If you would do some research into the fossil record you can find a lot of evidence that backs up evolution. Such as these:

Evolution of Cetaceans - Example of how the blowhole was evolved due to nasal passage drift.

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles

Evolution of the Horse

These do not represent a straight-line evolution of the species however it is definitely a start. The lack of these "straight-line" fossils does not disprove evolution, it only means we have not found the proper evidence yet.

there is ZERO transitional evidence from this to thus in the archeological records... Just peoples beliefs and made up science…

Human evolution - Ardipithecus

en.wikipedia.org...

Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae) which lived about 4.4 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

Because this genus shares several traits with the African great ape genera (genus Pan and genus Gorilla), some consider it to be on the chimpanzee rather than human branch, but most consider it a proto-human because of a likeness in teeth with Australopithecus.

www.archaeologyinfo.com...

A morphological description of the initial, mainly dental, fossil remains of Ardipithecus ramidus was published by White et al, 1994. The physical attributes of this hominid show a range of primitive traits, which are most likely character retentions from the last hominid/chimpanzee ancestor. At the same time, some hominid innovations are equally apparent. The currently known traits of Ardipithecus ramidus, in general, can be placed within two categories: ape-like traits and Australopithecine-like traits.

Much of the dentition is ape-like and this hominid most likely had a significantly different dietary niche than did later hominids. A small canine-incisor to postcanine dental ratio, typical of all other known hominids, is strikingly absent in Ardipithecus ramidus. In addition to the presence of a relatively large anterior dentition, tooth enamel is thin. Though slightly greater than in teeth of modern chimpanzees, enamel thickness of A. ramidus is extremely thin by hominid standards.

Australopithecus Afarensis - Lucy. Lucy is also the missing link creationists argue does not exist.

en.wikipedia.org...

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common with the younger Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis was slenderly built. From analysis it has been thought that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens.

Australopithecus Robustus -

en.wikipedia.org...

Paranthropus robustus (considered for a time by the scientific community as Australopithecus robustus) is generally dated to have lived between 2.0 and 1.2 million years ago.

www.archaeologyinfo.com...

The main question regarding A. robustus seems to be the question of whether or not it is a separate species from A. boisei, or if they are geographic species of a wide-ranging variable population. Most researchers seem to agree that they are separate lineages, with several important evolutionary trends that distinguish them. However, they share even more of the same evolutionary trends. It seems safe to call these separate lineages, but a vocal protest exists among those who see a monophyletic lineage

Homo Habilis -

en.wikipedia.org...

Homo habilis is a species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.5 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.

Homo habilis has often been thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of H. erectus being descended from H. habilis.

Homo Erectus -

en.wikipedia.org...

Homo erectus is an extinct species of the genus Homo, believed to have been the first hominin to leave Africa.

H. erectus originally migrated from Africa during the Early Pleistocene, possibly as a result of the operation of the Saharan pump, around 2.0 million years ago, and dispersed throughout most of the Old World. Fossilized remains 1.8 and 1.0 million years old have been found in Africa. Europe, Vietnam, and China.

Homo Sapien - us

the stories written within the Bible seem to support the archeological finds, let alone the historical documents.

Can you please give examples

I know I'm not going to convince you your belief are absolutely wrong, just like I'm sure you’re aware I am absolutely convinced there is no evidence to even remotely prove evolution...

Well i've shown you the human fossil records, what other evidence would you like?

supposed/laughable, “evidence,” for Evolution is no more scientific proof then the stories that have been proven to be true in the Bible

Firstly: give examples of bible stories that have been proven and then show how the evidance for those stories is more scientific then the evidance for evolution.

regardless of how many people want to call Evolution a fact. It most certainly is NOT!

It would appear you have not read my op at all, containing the evidence explaining evolution as both a fact and theory.

It truly is laughable… Everything that was once hailed as proof of Evolution has been proven to be horrible fakes, hoaxes, and purposeful blatant lies.

Such as? I would really like to know what fakes and hoaxes you are referring to.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


Quit saying it's a fact, and I'll agree with your points.

To say it's a fact is just wrong, facts don't have gaps, facts don't say "Well MOST of the evidence proves this to be right" Facts don't say "Well do you have a better explanation?" Facts don't say "There are mountains of evidence to back this up". Facts are apparent, even to the uninformed.

Facts are facts, unless science has also redefined the word fact?

The ONLY problem I have with any of this are the people claiming that this is fact. That takes more faith than any creationist has.

Enough said.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by gpzrd350
The lack of any links in the fossil record between species, suggests to me that perhaps we are missing a large part of the puzzle and that the current theory of evolution possibly doesn't explain everything.

False.
Here is the perfect example of creationist ignorance.

In fact - EVERY FOSSIL is transitional.
There is overwhelming evidence of many transitions.

But creationists simple deny the facts.
Anyone who actually bothers to check the facts, instead of repeating what they heard in church, wil find plenty of evidence.

But creationists never study the facts.
The only people who reject evolution are those who don't understand it.


Kapyong

Why do you have to get all pissy and go into attack mode, whenever your cherished faith is questioned? What are you doing that you don't want to be held accountable for? I could tell you alot about why I am smarter than the vast majority of people, but I won't. Suffice it to say I have studied this subject long and hard, not looking to justify previously held beliefs, but to know the truth. I HAVE looked at all your rantings, and I came to the solid conclusion that your scientific 'facts' are nothing more than your religious dogma, attempting to justify your beliefs thru gross distortion and manipulation of facts. I am not going to try and change your mind. I is already fossilized. I would tho, ask you to restrain yourself and stop attacking those who do not hold your own fantasies. In twenty years you will understand, and change your mind. Just back off and be civil.