Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breeds animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Here is the definition of fact:
A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
edit on 23-1-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Evolution aint no theory at all.
Its a fact.
An astute observation. Like there are males and females (and in rare cases androgyns). Is that up for debate?
Besides, anyone who breads animals can pretty much do some mini evolution at home.
Its an eloquent and poignant observation.
Now you may believe something else, but it remains a fact.
And it is so incomprehensibly beautiful, why would anyone want to deny this fact?
It is about our Earth.
It is about the very soul of being human.

Oh, where to begin - yes, Darwinian evolution is in fact a theory, and science just generally acknowledges is as currently the best explanation for the evidence and observations we make. While there are many lines of interpretation that lead to this conclusion, they are nevertheless debated on various sides for various reasons, with alternate explanations.

To say it is a fact is incomplete and inaccurate - opinion, despite how weighty an opinion it might be with the suggestive evidences.

As far as "mini evolution", I'd guess you're talking about genetic diversity and yielding desirable traits - these are functions of the variations within a species' genetic code (AKA manipulations of micro evolution/natural selection) and have nothing to do with the overarching theory of common descent.

While I applaud your goal, I can't approve the inaccuracies or misunderstandings.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Evolution in other species is an observable fact.

The evolution of humans from a previous species is a theory, and has been ever since the origin of the debate between creation and evolution. Only reasonable assumption is allowed when it comes to humans.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Not to mention he actually recanted his whole project on his deathbed. Although it really doesn't hinder it...it just allows room for some mystery and marvel, that's all.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact....



Or is this devolution? Either way, we are changing into a new species.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 

Wow you deny evolution and the wind?
Thats just evil, man.
I was unaware he recanted, not that it makes a difference.
Any links with that?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
i don't see one fact in that whole op. all i see is your opinion.

a misguided one, not based on personal investigation and research, but a regurgitation of illuminati propaganda to deny God.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


That's actually a hoax and the most basic of research would have turned up this information. But what importance is the truth when it affects your worldview? The truth is evolution is a theory and a fact. Species change and this is the cause for biodiversity on Earth. That is a fact. It is also a theory because it is based on empirical research and it is capable of making accurate predictions about future experiments. While the mechanisms of evolution may not be 100% understood it is still probably the strongest theory in all of science.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


The only things evolving on this planet are opinions.... like the one you presented in your OP



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
gravitational theory is also just a theory in the same way evolutionary theory is just a theory.

Yet you still fall down if you jump...

The problem is that a theory (Scientific) is actually pretty well founded...most forget that a hypothesis is -not- a theory, a hypothesis is a guess based on nothing much.

Theory of evolution
vs
hypothesis of creation.

Evolution is much closer to the truth than creation, or matrix, or etc..Yes,. evolution is still a theory, same as gravity, but it is far above the hypothesis the religious push forward.


Thing is, the hypothesis of creation is barely even that considering it doesn't give any testible suggestions.


A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study.


However, calling it "stoner talk of creation" seems a bit rude...probably more accurate, but still.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
i don't see one fact in that whole op. all i see is your opinion.

Lets be honest. if the ops read like a detailed scientific paper, you wouldn't budge one inch..or even read it I suspect.



a misguided one, not based on personal investigation and research, but a regurgitation of illuminati propaganda to deny God.

lol
I rest my case.

there is, btw, a far, FAR greater set of hyperparanoid links to show the "illuminati" actually -push- religion on the world. But..nevermind that. keep kneeling and remain in your pattern of worshipping authority programming. In God we trust and all that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact. Look at what we claim is how planets are made
How the universe was made.
Thats an evolution,
But the evolution of us, is in question. There's are gaps they cannot explain.
Therefore, until conclusive proof of our origins arrives, we will never know who is truly correct.

Of course, there would have to be some sort of creation happening in order for the universe to spring out of nowhere, or perhaps a minor form of conciousness. something cannot come from nothing, there had to be something because there cannot be nothing. There is no 'being' only 'becoming'.

But yes, evolution is a key part in it all. We are ever evolving, the universe is expanding and therefore evolving. But will we ever know? No one can conclusively say anything, because there is always room for error.

I personally think evolution of living species goes in leaps, a buildup to a leap to the next evolution,
Planetary evolution is a long process.
Species evolution not nearly as long one would assume.
edit on 23/1/12 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)
edit on 23/1/12 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life

And here we have creation as a FACT.

I'm sure it will evolve too.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


How is that evidence for creation of organic life? We have know that was created because we have empirical evidence that it was created. Where is the empirical evidence that organic life was created?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
There's are gaps they cannot explain.


I find it interesting that the gaps in evolution are coincidentally lined up with gaps in my research towards that specific area.
However, just because I haven't bothered to educate myself more on these gaps doesn't mean the gaps actually exist...I am simply ignorant of the scientific uncoverings.

When I was young, I was told by my elders that the theory of evolution was probably bunk because they couldn't find "the missing link"..aka, the transition state between monkey to man. I accepted that as truth (after all, it was the elders telling me this..the authority).
Well, imagine my suprise when in science class we learned about neandertals, homo-erectus, homo-sapian(orig), homo-etc...the various other homo genus tree, branching back from a split.

point being, whenever a meaty debate has come up, and people try to point out a supposed gap, a bit of scratching reveals not 1, but typically a dozen variations...even down to some pretty impressive findings of a rna birth from little more than early earth muck.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


No, thats just our first step to becoming gods.
As we are now creators ourselves.
Our in this case manipulative creators.
We become real creators, when we create life from inanimate.
However, it has no arguement against evolution.
The created life will ALSO evolve.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 

I personally think evolution of living species goes in leaps, a buildup to a leap to the next evolution,
Planetary evolution is a long process.
Species evolution not nearly as long one would assume.

I take it you're referring to punctuated equilibrium theory here? I always got a kick out of reading Gould demolish the gradualistic theory and argue punk-eek, and then watching the gradualists come back and shred Gould's theories...leading me to believe the varying factions of evolutionary theory are their own best hostile witnesses.

I'm open to consider the idea of common descent, but at this point it's got too many insurmountable hurdles for my taste, as well as too many flawed assumptions (as regards stratification, radiometric dating, and others) - in addition to its/biology's unwillingness and inability to reach further to address (a)biogenesis.

Take care.
edit on 1/23/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join