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, It's only a theory

page: 52
65
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Here are some interesting points



Question: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
Answer: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.



Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. 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). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

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. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

www.talkorigins.org...

I think this nicely sums up the theory of evolution and fact.

This is assuming of course you want to believe the information posted. This can also be found at a myriad of other sources, I just chose the above for readability for the lay person.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie

I'll wait for you to read both the posts and make an informed comment rather than taking you to task on the absurdity of what you just stated
... ill then edit



So what you're saying is that speciation only happens because of increase of genes.

Sorry that's just plain wrong. Speciation occurs because of isolation and natural selection. One population becomes two populations and then these two populations face different environments and different genes come out on top in these two different environments. Keep at it long enough and you've got two populations that cannot breed even if the isolation factor disappears. Thus the original species has disappeared and instead you now have two new species.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Fundie

I'll wait for you to read both the posts and make an informed comment rather than taking you to task on the absurdity of what you just stated
... ill then edit




So what you're saying is that speciation only happens because of increase of genes.

Sorry that's just plain wrong. Speciation occurs because of isolation and natural selection. One population becomes two populations and then these two populations face different environments and different genes come out on top in these two different environments. Keep at it long enough and you've got two populations that cannot breed even if the isolation factor disappears. Thus the original species has disappeared and instead you now have two different species.


Actually, I didn't declare what I believed in 'speciation'. I merely stated what the scientific method is in relation to Historical Science and Operational science, and how this correlates to Evolution as a whole and individually within Micro and Macro evolution.

I then clearly stated the fallacies and non sequiturs associated with ignorance and acceptance of a generalised view. Do you not even see them?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Fundie

I'll wait for you to read both the posts and make an informed comment rather than taking you to task on the absurdity of what you just stated
... ill then edit




So what you're saying is that speciation only happens because of increase of genes.

Sorry that's just plain wrong. Speciation occurs because of isolation and natural selection. One population becomes two populations and then these two populations face different environments and different genes come out on top in these two different environments. Keep at it long enough and you've got two populations that cannot breed even if the isolation factor disappears. Thus the original species has disappeared and instead you now have two different species.


Actually, I didn't declare what I believed in 'speciation'. I merely stated what the scientific method is in relation to Historical Science and Operational science, and how this correlates to Evolution as a whole and individually within Micro and Macro evolution.

I then clearly stated the fallacies and non sequiturs associated with ignorance and acceptance of a generalised view. Do you not even see them?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]




1) The Theory of Evolution non sequitur:

If MiE is true, then MaE is true
MiE is True
Thus MaE is true


Nice try, but the thing is that micoevolution and macroevolution are the same thing (see my previous post). There's no fundamental line between the two. It's just a lame creationist attemt to discredit our evolutinary history.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Fundie

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Fundie

I'll wait for you to read both the posts and make an informed comment rather than taking you to task on the absurdity of what you just stated
... ill then edit




So what you're saying is that speciation only happens because of increase of genes.

Sorry that's just plain wrong. Speciation occurs because of isolation and natural selection. One population becomes two populations and then these two populations face different environments and different genes come out on top in these two different environments. Keep at it long enough and you've got two populations that cannot breed even if the isolation factor disappears. Thus the original species has disappeared and instead you now have two different species.


Actually, I didn't declare what I believed in 'speciation'. I merely stated what the scientific method is in relation to Historical Science and Operational science, and how this correlates to Evolution as a whole and individually within Micro and Macro evolution.

I then clearly stated the fallacies and non sequiturs associated with ignorance and acceptance of a generalised view. Do you not even see them?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]




1) The Theory of Evolution non sequitur:

If MiE is true, then MaE is true
MiE is True
Thus MaE is true


Nice try, but the thing is that micoevolution and macroevolution are the same thing (see my previous post). There's no fundamental line between the two. It's just a lame creationist attemt to discredit evolution.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]


LMAO .. you obviously havent the vaguest idea what the scientific method is about. In fact, you have clearly demonstrated you know not what non sequiturs are... but, you do a very good strawman of throwing the 'creationist' stick at me.

I suggest you study what the scientific method is about. Take a good honest objective look at why you say Micro and Macro are exactly the same. I can only hope.

Microevolution
Macroevolution

Just because you are unlearned in what they are, doesnt mean they dont exist.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie

LMAO .. you obviously havent the vaguest idea what the scientific method is about. In fact, you have clearly demonstrated you know not what non sequiturs are... but, you do a very good strawman of throwing the 'creationist' stick at me.

I suggest you study what the scientific method is about. Take a good honest objective look at why you say Micro and Macro are exactly the same. I can only hope.

Microevolution
Macroevolution

Just because you are unlearned in what they are, doesnt mean they dont exist.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]


Considering it's my 5th year in a University I'd hope to know what scientific methdod is. Apparently to you it's obvious that I don't. Well great. I really don't care. Let's move on..

microevolution = change over time
macroevolution = change over time

Do you agree?

The process is the same. A population of organisms adopts to change. It's really that simple. Read my previous posts once more.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


Well I assume you are taking the Holistic stance... that way you dont have to answer the trickier questions. It also allows you to ignore fundamental research methodologies and lump it under one umbrella of... oh well it happens over time... without having the need to answer HOW within and without a species.

oh please please hit me with the question that anti-creationist sites say you ask when faced with someone saying micro and macro evolusion


You could be in your 5th year of accounting for all i know... and see.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
All I see is creationist garble. Irrationality FTW, eh?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
All I see is creationist garble. Irrationality FTW, eh?


Is that all you got? slipping into strawman territory... shame, its usually creationists getting accused of strawman.

But then again, I guess thats all you would see. Past posts of yours have reflected this. Again shame, I thought you truly wanted to talk... but alas, as your previous discourse has illustrated you wish to troll.

Shame



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Let's try one more time.

What makes you think that "micro" evolution coupled with isolation and great periods of time doesn't lead to "macro" evolution (aka speciation)?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie
LMAO .. you obviously havent the vaguest idea what the scientific method is about. In fact, you have clearly demonstrated you know not what non sequiturs are... but, you do a very good strawman of throwing the 'creationist' stick at me.

I suggest you study what the scientific method is about. Take a good honest objective look at why you say Micro and Macro are exactly the same. I can only hope.

Microevolution
Macroevolution

Just because you are unlearned in what they are, doesnt mean they dont exist.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Fundie]


Yeah, and a fundie creationist does, lol.


1. State a working or null hypothesis [yup]
2. Apply working definitions for the important terms (hence zero ambiguity when repeating the test) [yup, not too sure about zero ambiguity, lol]
3. Formalise the independent variable(s) you wish to test [sometimes, not all observations have IV, makes sense to do so for DV as well]
4. Ensure a baseline is present [not always]
5. Formulate the experiment free from confounding [impossible]
6. State the Confidence level (alpha) for variance (usually 95% min) [depends]
7. Establish a significant/reliable and valid sample [hopefully]
8. Perform Test [i.e., make observation]
9. Analyse data [of course]
10. Draw conclusions [yup]
11. Reject or accept the null hypothesis [aye]
12. Re-examine hypothesis/testing procedures [usually]
13. Re-test if necessary [if you want]


[my additions]


HS on the other hand is about probability/best guess/assumptions/inference etc


You outlined the same above. Probability = statisitics. Inference = draw conclusion. Assumptions = for you, an experiment is free from confounds, lol.

We went over this last time you brought up this creationist attempt to define this duality in science. It's BS.

There is a range of methods in science. There is science that is not historical which does not use the method you outlined. I could compare the memory abilities of a group of females and males, there is no control group or baseline - we do have IV (2 levels; gender) and DV (recall). I can't even really replicate it exactly, as each new sample would be different. The fact you even think there is the possibility of an experiment 'free from confounding' shows how basic your knowledge is. That would assume omniscience.

Please. Science is science. Historical sciences (which is a fair defintion) like paleontology use empirical methods, they can even repeat their observations with new sources of materials, just like taking a new sample in 'operational science' (creationist BS definition). The observations can be replicated and verified. They test falsifiable hypotheses just like every other area of science.

You probably wouldn't even accept what you term 'operational' science if it goes against your theology. I could replicate radiodating measures under highly controlled experimental conditions again and again, but many would still refuse to accept it. I can make clear 'operational' assessment of many aspects of evolutionary science (e.g., humans and apes have common ancestor using genetics), and you would still reject it. Each is a form of 'operational' science which makes inferences about history.

The creationist attempts to redefine science are not accepted.

Macroevolution is just lots of micro. There is no barrier. Show me one. Microevolution includes the development of novel genes and traits.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
All I see is creationist garble. Irrationality FTW, eh?


The funniest thing is that they think we would allow morons like Ken Ham define what science is about, lol.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

HS on the other hand is about probability/best guess/assumptions/inference etc

You outlined the same above. Probability = statisitics. Inference = draw conclusion. Assumptions = for you, an experiment is free from confounds, lol.

We went over this last time you brought up this creationist attempt to define this duality in science. It's BS.

There is a range of methods in science. There is science that is not historical which does not use the method you outlined. I could compare the memory abilities of a group of females and males, there is no control group or baseline - we do have IV (2 levels; gender) and DV (recall). I can't even really replicate it exactly, as each new sample would be different. The fact you even think there is the possibility of an experiment 'free from confounding' shows how basic your knowledge is. That would assume omniscience.

Please. Science is science. Historical sciences (which is a fair defintion) like paleontology use empirical methods, they can even repeat their observations with new sources of materials, just like taking a new sample in 'operational science' (creationist BS definition). The observations can be replicated and verified. They test falsifiable hypotheses just like every other area of science.

You probably wouldn't even accept what you term 'operational' science if it goes against your theology. I could replicate radiodating measures under highly controlled experimental conditions again and again, but many would still refuse to accept it. I can make clear 'operational' assessment of many aspects of evolutionary science (e.g., humans and apes have common ancestor using genetics), and you would still reject it. Each is a form of 'operational' science which makes inferences about history.

The creationist attempts to redefine science are not accepted.

Macroevolution is just lots of micro. There is no barrier. Show me one. Microevolution includes the development of novel genes and traits.


Ahhh another student of the scientific method. Of course your are correct on confounding.. it IS impossible, but then again I did say OS in easy terms. Apart from that I'm spot on. Yes you can run no baseline if you run repeated measures ANOVA in Difference measurement data collection within multiple groups or variables, or else go with a basic t-test... but you know that right?

But hey, you see 'operational' and assume I got knowledge from a website. Thats OK, in scientific fields, Historical, Operational, methodology and virtually all other labels are not exclusive to any particular group.

I laugh at your 'Science is science' quote. How wrong can you be? I DO question the duality because it is easy to observe (for example) selective breeding in dogs.. do the quantitative data analysis.. then repeat the same QDA on a transitional animal some millions of years old... oops you cant.. Science is NOT Science. Especially when Macroevolution requires as much leap of inference from an Evo as does the leap of inference for creationists… both are past, historical, origin or whatever flavour science you wish to call it. Very simplistic I know,, but valid none the less

Throwing the umbrella over microevolusionary and macroevolutionary processes and saying they are the same is intellectually dishonest. You may fall back on holism but it still amounts to the same thing. And I am not redefining science. I am stating methodology, tried, true and tested… me being a creationist has ZERO to do with that.

You wanting biological or logical barriers? That’s the question anti-creationist sites ‘dare you to ask’

Studies with dog breeding and Darwin’s finches, for two(2) examples, clearly show that there is a loss of genetic material from the gene pool. There are no beneficial mutations. Beaks suddenly didn’t grow larger to an inert super repressed gene or a pair of extravagant allele that suddenly mutated and survived the cull. Natural selection is depletive by nature.. and yes its easily observable in not a massive change of time.

The barrier is clearly met when cross speciation is required in your theory… ‘Macroevolution is just lots of micro’ … wow lots of depletion of gene pool ie reductionism. But hold on, that means we are actually devolving, because since its lots of micros with little input from genetic drift, mutations etc are ape ancestors must have a brobdingnagian gene pool to allow for all the depletion… oh right, there’s those mutations that had to happen over some.. err immeasurable time. But the evidence is so slim.. please don’t quote me fruit flies, E-coli etc…with such a sound theory, I expect meat on my bones and plenty of it.. is there?? Err nope.

Too right I see a barrier, a massive barrier between easily accepted proven, observable and repeatable data from the NOW… then there’s that magic presumptuous line of over time it DID happen.. honest! Of course you will rationalize what I say with Holism if you extend me some courtesy of not your average raving loony, or brush me off with ignoring all said and using the strawman attack of bashing the ‘creationist’… cos… well.. its cool to do.

However, by spinning so much rubbish about my ‘theology’ and casting dispersions upon my faith and how it apparently correlates to my objectivity… well I guess you have already done it… shame on you.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fundie
Ahhh another student of the scientific method. Of course your are correct on confounding.. it IS impossible, but then again I did say OS in easy terms. Apart from that I'm spot on. Yes you can run no baseline if you run repeated measures ANOVA in Difference measurement data collection within multiple groups or variables, or else go with a basic t-test... but you know that right?


lol, it speaks like it knows what it's talking about.

You could have no basline in any ANOVA, MANOVA, ANCOVA etc etc. It is not a requirement.


But hey, you see 'operational' and assume I got knowledge from a website. Thats OK, in scientific fields, Historical, Operational, methodology and virtually all other labels are not exclusive to any particular group.


It's a creationist definition. There is no such duality between 'operational' and historical. You could have historical and non-historical, I guess.


I laugh at your 'Science is science' quote. How wrong can you be? I DO question the duality because it is easy to observe (for example) selective breeding in dogs.. do the quantitative data analysis.. then repeat the same QDA on a transitional animal some millions of years old... oops you cant.. Science is NOT Science. Especially when Macroevolution requires as much leap of inference from an Evo as does the leap of inference for creationists… both are past, historical, origin or whatever flavour science you wish to call it. Very simplistic I know,, but valid none the less


Nope, not really. As I said, you can define 'historical' science, but it also uses what you have decided to call 'operational' science. The duality is a BS effort to denigrate the parts of science you dislike.


Throwing the umbrella over microevolusionary and macroevolutionary processes and saying they are the same is intellectually dishonest.


lol


You wanting biological or logical barriers? That’s the question anti-creationist sites ‘dare you to ask’


Would be start.


Studies with dog breeding and Darwin’s finches, for two(2) examples, clearly show that there is a loss of genetic material from the gene pool. There are no beneficial mutations. Beaks suddenly didn’t grow larger to an inert super repressed gene or a pair of extravagant allele that suddenly mutated and survived the cull. Natural selection is depletive by nature.. and yes its easily observable in not a massive change of time.


There are beneficial mutations. That is a lie. Listen to your brethren at AIG:


Arguments that should never be used
4. There are no beneficial mutations.

www.answersingenesis.org...

You presented no barrier.


The barrier is clearly met when cross speciation is required in your theory… ‘Macroevolution is just lots of micro’ … wow lots of depletion of gene pool ie reductionism. But hold on, that means we are actually devolving, because since its lots of micros with little input from genetic drift, mutations etc are ape ancestors must have a brobdingnagian gene pool to allow for all the depletion… oh right, there’s those mutations that had to happen over some.. err immeasurable time. But the evidence is so slim.. please don’t quote me fruit flies, E-coli etc…with such a sound theory, I expect meat on my bones and plenty of it.. is there?? Err nope.


Still no barrier, just opinion.


Too right I see a barrier, a massive barrier between easily accepted proven, observable and repeatable data from the NOW… then there’s that magic presumptuous line of over time it DID happen.. honest! Of course you will rationalize what I say with Holism if you extend me some courtesy of not your average raving loony, or brush me off with ignoring all said and using the strawman attack of bashing the ‘creationist’… cos… well.. its cool to do.


Who cares what you see?

I asked for evidence of a barrier, not your opinion.


However, by spinning so much rubbish about my ‘theology’ and casting dispersions upon my faith and how it apparently correlates to my objectivity… well I guess you have already done it… shame on you.


No shame. I just know the actions of creationists too well. I've noticed a shift to ambiguity, though - 'ooh, but am I creationist/christian/hong-kong-phooey/batman, I never said I was', lol.

You're transparent.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Can we all agree evolution is a fact with the theory explaning the fact?



[edit on 8-3-2009 by andre18]


Yes!!!!

I can agree to that. Now we can argue about the Theory. At least now I can say we are at a good starting point.

Andre, we now agree. Now let's go argue about The Theory of Evolution somewhere. hehe



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Hi all,

I'm new so take it easy on me!

(Please, do not box me into a category! For the record: I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist!)

It seems everyone has started this debate or whatever you'd like to call it, without first agreeing to a specific definition for evolution. If I'm wrong I apologize. A lot of comments have been made without working out this rather large detail.

The dictionary gives six different definitions for evolution and none of them specifically uphold any one view that has been argued here.

Let's define, in specific parameters, what kind evolution we're discussing. That way, there's likely to be less arguing and more critical thinking going on.

I personally think one kind of species, animal, etc., cannot transform or evolve into a completely different life form. Let me nail it down a little better; I don't think human beings evolved from apes or that apes evolved from sea creatures millions of years ago. When people call this evolution and then call it fact, that is when I object. There is no empirical scientific evidence to support such a theory.

Depending on what the definition of evolution we are debating I might agree or I might disagree. There is no doubt that life forms evolve through adaptation. Whether a creationist or an evolutionist, both camps seem to have very narrow and stubborn views on the origins of life.

Science, if we simplify it, is truth, or the search for truth. A debate, in my opinion, shouldn't be about winning an argument, but about coming closer to the truth through fairly respectful discussion. I know it's hard to separate our emotions from such an important subject but it is paramount to do just that. If we're ever going to come to some kind of a consensus on what evolution really is then we have to respect each other.

So...

What definition are we going with? What parameters does this definition include and what is the fundamental theory of "Evolution" that we're all trying to discuss?

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
It's time for everyone to take a break and enjoy a show from down under on this topic.

evidenceweb.net...


Do some clicking around and some reading on the site too.

Thanks in advance for your humble attention.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Human foot prints found in solid rock and said to be 1.5 million years old are proof that humans and apes are distinct species and always have been. See the full article here:

www.icr.org...




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


More exactly, the 'footprints' look similar to human footprints. There is absolutely no way that anyone can say they are 'human' footprints. Now, wheather or not they were actually laid in sediment millions of years ago, or slyly carved more recently is another question.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


Yes it's a question of whether the footprints looked similar isn't it?

Same as it's a question about whether the fossil evidence looks similar to human's.

Scientists can tell these footprints were not carved. You should know that.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join