creationism, the garbage that it is, is NOT a theory, and barely even rates as a hypothesis. its faith based, there is absolutely no proof o fit, and so really, crap like that should not be included in any sane or credible academic schedule.

Originally posted by tamusan
Climacoceras, Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, Palaeotragus, and Samotherium. The line from a deer with a short neck to the modern giraffe.

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.

For a short neck giraffe alive today, look at the okapi.

(continued)

There is actually great deal of fossil and genetic evidence for evolution as described above (natural selection + mutation producing changes in life forms over geological time periods). It's this accumulation of many, many pieces of evidence of many types that makes evolution so well established, not any single item.

Virtually the whole biotech industry is based on biology which depends on evolutionary theory for its underpinnings.

There IS no important "missing link". In the case of Stellar Evolution (the history of stars), we have examples of many stars in many stages. Is the theory wrong if we have no known example of a star that's exactly 5,184,238,989 years old? No; as we have plenty of "datapoints" of stars older and younger than that from which to extrapolate, there's no "missing link" star stage. Likewise, the fossil record is amazingly complete, and what gaps there are continue to be filled as more research is done. There's no gap in the fossil record that casts doubt on the whole process, no point that's "outside the curve", unexplainable by the theory.

How about pre-fossil record - the first formation of life? That's less certain. Hey, maybe a bit under 5 billion years ago God or an alien race did step in and help the process along. Perhaps evidence of that intervention will be discovered next year. But it hasn't come to light yet. And we do have good evidence that evolution took over after that.

Maybe God intervened in Natural Selection from time to time over these billions of years. Fine, present a falsifiable hypothesis which would demonstrate whether or not that happened, and we can try to scientifically test it.

Maybe God created the planet a few thousand years ago - along with all the fossils and radiocarbon evidence etc. Well, sure but then God could have just as well created this universe twenty minutes ago along with all the neural pathways that make you think you were once a child with grandparents. Both of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses, so it's outside the realm of science. We'll just have to content ourselves with discovering the laws of this universe that "appears" to have come into existence billions of years ago.

One of the things which psychology has demonstrated is that it's close to impossible to convince somebody of a line of abstract reasoning when their emotions don't want them to believe it. Not quite impossible, and that's the brilliance of science and reason - once in a while somebody actually changes what they believe based on reasons, rather than rationalizing what they want to believe. I would not bet any money that there's much opening for that here. Those who want or need to believe that evolution has no scientific basis can do so in the face of any degree of evidence. It is ALWAYS possible for an individual to explain away what one doesn't want to accept.

Science is an interesting approach. It's all about how one can take a bunch of humans who all want to distort evidence to support their beliefs, and weave them into a cooperating and competing community which can gradually sift fact from belief, despite their individual failings. It's an imperfect process which goes off on false trails at times, but it has an impressive record of righting itself over time. People outside that culture tend to not understand the process by which science accomplishes this, and misapply vague concepts of "theory" or "fact" to convince themselves that their beliefs have scientific backing even when they are way outside the set of theories which the known evidence could support. Unfortunately, arguing with most of them is like debating Beethoven's innovations with somebody who is tone and rhythm deaf but is bluffing based on how they believe music probably works from what they've heard without understanding.

reasoner

Scientists after much study now consider Climacoceras a Giraffoid, which is a member of the same species.
Being a "Giraffoid" does not make it the same species. That is not what the term "Giraffoid" implies. Climacoceras is in the family Climacoceratidae and there are other members of this family. None are living. A giraffe is in the family Giraffidae. Giraffe and okapi are two "living" members of this family.

what the heck...

yeh it's a theory...


but you sound like you want to disprove it, this is an argument used by creationists over and over again.
"IT'S NOT PROVEN SO IT'S FALSE"

That's the general mentality of those people.


Evolution is mutations in genetics over a period of time, that's all it really is.

Change in genetics may = change in phenotypes, thus we have "evolution"

People always think that evolution means "Natural selection," although the two are not the same thing. In evolution, genes dont necessarily change according to the environment for better adaptation, evolution is just change in the genetic coding.

My dad's been a geneticist for over 30 years, he said it's theory because we havn't really set a real standard for WHAT IS evolution yet.

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't I believe in evolution?
It is speculation.

Wrong.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.



Kapyong

What I find interesting in all of this is the question: WHY. Why the heck would a cell A) be born, B) decide in some way it has to adapt itself to the environment, C) adapt itself until it becomes millions of zillions of times as complex. Probably that's a dumb question to all the scientifically prepared ATSers here, but I find it mind boggling. (In my ignorance. )

As for a bunch of other issues, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Evolution may be proven 100000% whatchawant, but mustn't a cell have some kind of instruction from somebody/something/whatever that may be to evolve?

Just my guess.

It would be interesting to have a thread where both positions (pro-evolution fellows/anti-evolution guys) are confronted. And see what happens.

PS: please, PLEASE, don't call me a creationist, because i'm not. Seriously.

[edit on 2-3-2009 by theufologist]

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.

Evolution has been tested by millions of experiments and observations by 1000s of scientists in dozens of countries for many decades.

It has passed every test - MILLIONS of them.
NOT ONE test has shown evolution false.

Of course, creationists like B.A.C. simply deny these clear facts.


Kapyong