Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

[quoe]um, no. i don't believe in devolution. i said it is one of the options that evolutionists can choose from now that macro-evolution has been thoroughly debunked.


Maco-evolution has not been "debunked" and only appears on creationist websites that don't understand the meaning of macroevolution.

Macroevolution for Dummies

Evidence of Macroevolution



for the record, evolution holds that the genetic information for everything came from beneficial mutations. this has been proven false. information is lost over time, not gained. so somewhere in the past the information had to come from something or someone.


Absurd statement again. There are cases of beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful, so your assertion that all genetic information came from beneficial mutations shows your ignorance of the subject.

Mutations


variations in species occur, but not for the reasons evolution says, and they can never produce a new organism. i keep waiting for these "facts" of yours. if you can't provide any credible facts with sources, i'm going to assume you're a troll.


You don't know what speciation even means. Speciation is:


A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis).


Observed Speciation
More Cases of Observed Speciation

Do us all a favor and stop spreading lies, especially when the "facts" have now been presented to you. Also, stop reading religious websites about science and go to the real source.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 


Let's not forget germ theory. You would think that since it also deals with biological organisms these people would be complaining about the fact that it doesn't address the origin of life. Yet, I bet not a single person who complains about evolution not explaining abiogenesis have no doubt in their minds that bacteria and viruses cause diseases.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Evolution is as much of a fact as the earth going around the sun (heliocentric theory), germs making us sick(Germ theory), and gravity(theory of).

I would never say anything, even those listed above, can be said to be claimed to be 100% for sure true. And thus, I don't like the word fact.

However, the criteria for a Scientific Theory is that all the evidence point to it being fact, and loads of peer-review, scrutiny, and acceptance by eminent scientists.

Evolution is not a theory. A theory is a hunch, or guess, an unsupported explanation. Intelligent Design is a theory.

Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is neither fact or theory. It's what science has concluded to be the most reasonable to assume to be fact, in the same sense that it's reasonable to assume the earth goes around the sun due to the evidence. Evolution, does have a miniscule chance of being wrong, but only in the same way Germ Theory may be wrong, they're both very unlikely to be anything but true.


Originally posted by randyvs
Perfectly reasonable ? The chances of just one protien molecule joining together on it's own are one in 1/300.

That's a one with 300 zeros behind it. Science considers 1/50 to be an imposibility. Sagen himself said that life is the reult of many deaths in a violent universe. How many chances did this six fold impossibility get before it finally took hold ? None. Abiogenisis ? Nah ! Genesis.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Exactly the kind of post I'd expect from you, Randy.

Let's see. The math would be better represented such as 1/10^300. Second, the statement was made by, not a biologist or other eminent scientist, but a religious astrologer who had no place to make such claims. Funny thing is, after this man learned about abiogenesis and the modern science supporting it, he not only retracted his statement, but also beliefs in both evolution and abiogenesis now.

Science doesn't consider anything under a 1/10^50 chance to be false. Instead, it's unpredictable. You cannot judge probabilities after the fact. The chances of my entire day happening how it did so far is under 1/10^80000, that doesn't mean my day hasn't happened, it just means you couldn't predict every single event happening as they did.

When you have factors such as billions of years, and entire planets for proteins to form, the chance goes away from anything less than 1/10^50. When you don't skew numbers, and factor in the entire universe, not only is it likely to eventually happen, but nearly inevitable.

Even if it's a "six fold possibility", it's had even more chances. Not none, it's being given a chance in many places, many times in every passing moment.

Also, why does everyone only ever take certain quotes from Carl Sagan? He had well documented reasons for believing what he did, both in evolution and abiogenesis. It's essentially quote-mining to take the part where he was an authority on it, and try to use his quotes to support a different idea. It's out of context, the context being all the other information he had access to that's being left out.

Now, when you try to dismiss Abiogenesis as unreasonable, and say The biblical book of Genesis is Perfectly Reasonable instead. That's completely ridiculous. Not only can common sense see better than that, but so has our growing scientific understanding of the world.

Effectively everything you said is false, not a single true statement in the paragraph, good job.

~
If you would provide sources for the claims you make, even incredibly biased creationist sources, maybe the name of the astrologer would be easier to find.

I'm not gonna waste too much time looking for a source on that, I've read it enough times before. I'll link you to This PDF, which I belief probably talks about it(Been awhile since I read it, it's a response to a Watchtower society pamphlet that said that amongst other false creationism claims. If it's not in there, I've have to find which Response it was in.

Oh, and here's one on Hoyle's Falacy, which is relevant and you'll find informative as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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...

I've heard this so many times, I think it might be a mantra.

The problem with this analogy is;
Falling down after you jump tells you nothing about the theory of gravity. Just as being alive tells you nothing about the theory of evolution.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 





Even if it's a "six fold possibility", it's had even more chances. Not none, it's being given a chance in many places, many times in every passing moment.


I know you're right because I seen it happening just the other day. Glad I'm living up to your expectations. Amigo.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
so you are a troll.


Glad its been sorted.

couldn't have put it better myself.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jem504
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.


Evolution is a FACT, no doubt about that, now where we come from is all based on speculation, and theory. But this does NOT mean that evolution is not a fact. Anyone who denies evolution, is like saying the earth is a cube, theres just no point in arguing with someone like that. I think where people take offense, is when we try to say that this mammal turned into this ape, and this ape turned into man. We can only speculate as to where we come from, not to say that the human evolutionary theory isn't a possibility, there are many other possiblities to our orgins, and we can't rule them out just because we don't understand them.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 



This is one of the biggest strawman ever perpetuated by creationists. You have to ask, how come creationists never say this about the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the gazillion other scientific theories out there - none of which addresses the origin of the subject it explains? Why does evolution have to explain the origin of life? Evolution deals with change. Now what does that have to do with the origins of life? The dishonesty of creationists can't get any more transparent.

as i've said, the only reason you don't want to talk about how life began from non-life is because you don't have an answer. evolutionists have attempted to show how life can come from non-life through natural means, but all those attempts failed, so they now deign to not address the subject. if you really think how life began has no bearing on how life operates, then i don't know what to tell you.

all of those theories have an origin to explain them. its called the big bang. all of those theories are intrinsically linked to how the universe began, and they do offer an explanation.

now, lets stop side-tracking...i'm waiting for someone to address the harmful mutations problem. if you cannot posit a response (despite assuring me evolution is 100% fact), then will you reject evolution as the evidence clearly contradicts it? no, because you're fanatical about your beliefs.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Firepac
 



This is one of the biggest strawman ever perpetuated by creationists. You have to ask, how come creationists never say this about the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or the gazillion other scientific theories out there - none of which addresses the origin of the subject it explains? Why does evolution have to explain the origin of life? Evolution deals with change. Now what does that have to do with the origins of life? The dishonesty of creationists can't get any more transparent.

as i've said, the only reason you don't want to talk about how life began from non-life is because you don't have an answer. evolutionists have attempted to show how life can come from non-life through natural means, but all those attempts failed, so they now deign to not address the subject. if you really think how life began has no bearing on how life operates, then i don't know what to tell you.

all of those theories have an origin to explain them. its called the big bang. all of those theories are intrinsically linked to how the universe began, and they do offer an explanation.

now, lets stop side-tracking...i'm waiting for someone to address the harmful mutations problem. if you cannot posit a response (despite assuring me evolution is 100% fact), then will you reject evolution as the evidence clearly contradicts it? no, because you're fanatical about your beliefs.


Just because evolution can't be linked to the origins of life, doesn't mean thats not how it happened. It just means we're not capable of doing that yet, or of course that we have it wrong. Whats this about harmful mutations?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
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 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)


Why does Steven J Gould disagree with you? Why does talkorigins.org disagree with you?


In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
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. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

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.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


I would have to agree that nothing can be 100%. NOTHING. But then this would lead to fact no being able to exist. At some point we have to draw the line, we can call them facts, while remebering while doing so, does not mean you can't change it back.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


They don't agree because they are playing a game of semantics. Nobody has time or the care to deal with stuff like that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Evolution never presumed to explain the origin of life. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species as in why there are some many different species on Earth. In other words it sought to explain biodiversity. However, why do require that evolutionary biologists explain the origin of life but you don't hold microbiologists to that same standard? Germ theory is a scientific theory in the field of biology just like evolution. Why does only one of them need to explain abiogenesis when it is not under the purview of either of them?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by addygrace
 


They don't agree because they are playing a game of semantics. Nobody has time or the care to deal with stuff like that.
Are you saying you disagree with talkorigins.org or Gould, or both?

The part I found ironic in the quote I posted was the part where Gould says, "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do." Yet, I find myself replying to a thread where an evolutionist actually makes a claim for perpetual truth.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
I know you're right because I seen it happening just the other day. Glad I'm living up to your expectations. Amigo.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I point out a post filled with nothing but flaws, and explain everything behind them within a scientific context.

Instead of addressing it, you ignore it all and leave a sarcastic remark. And you know what, go ahead. Dismiss real science as much as you want. You have the right to. Just know that this is an open forum, and inaccurate posts will be scrutinized. Given that anyone else can see these, and see how false they are, and you ignore responses, I really don't know why you even post them, you leave no room for personal growth, and give nothing that'd convince others.

I can't see why you're a "Gold" member. I really can't.

~
Maybe that was a bit rude. I'm not taking it back though. I don't like coming off sounding aggressive, I don't mean it in an aggressive manner. (Yes, I know my post isn't very offensive, but I care very much about manners and etiquette, and I don't like deviating from that.)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



It may be a fact in your opinion it is not a fact but a scientific theory. Science works through the process of falsification. It works by disproving itself. So science never creates facts. All of scientific theory is at a later date disproved science. Newton, Einstein etc all disproven.

So from a scientific point of view you cannot say evolution is a fact
edit on 23-1-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


The claim is that evolution is a fact, which is true, we evolve over generations, nobody can deny that, well you can, but as I said earliar that would be like denying the fact that the earth is a sphere. The perpetual truth that gould talked about is that evolution explains how and why humans are where we are now. This is a theory, becuase we don't know for sure our origins. For all we know we were created by aliens 200,000 years ago.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by BBalazs
 



It may be a fact in your opinion it is not a fact but a scientific theory. Science works through the process of falsification. It works by disproving itself. So science never creates facts. All of scientific theory is at a later date disproved science. Newton, Einstein etc all disproven.

So from a scientific point of view you cannot say evolution is a fact
edit on 23-1-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


Yea but then we're just playing a game of semantics, we all are thinking the same thing, we just use different words. You are the type of person that insists everything fit in its little place, while people like me are okay with just going on to say it is a fact, along with the fact that the earth is a sphere. Now with your logic you could say well the earth is a sphere in theory, but its like I said thats just semantics, and nobody really cares.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Evolution never presumed to explain the origin of life. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species as in why there are some many different species on Earth. In other words it sought to explain biodiversity. However, why do require that evolutionary biologists explain the origin of life but you don't hold microbiologists to that same standard? Germ theory is a scientific theory in the field of biology just like evolution. Why does only one of them need to explain abiogenesis when it is not under the purview of either of them?
What does the germ theory of disease have to do with origins?

There's a problem with saying evolution caused all of life's diversity we see today, and then saying this has nothing to do with origins. We are absolutely looking into the past, with the origin of each organism and claiming that organism has a common ancestor with all other organisms. This whole idea tries to explain the origins of all organisms on earth. It makes the claim all organisms have a common ancestor.

Now, if you're talking about adaptation and genetic mutations, then no, it has nothing to do with origins. The fact of the matter is, evolution theory doesn't stop there. It's claim regresses to the first and is extrapolated to all.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
now, lets stop side-tracking...i'm waiting for someone to address the harmful mutations problem. if you cannot posit a response (despite assuring me evolution is 100% fact), then will you reject evolution as the evidence clearly contradicts it? no, because you're fanatical about your beliefs.


I already provided you links further up the page. Unless you have your own form of self censorship.

"Oh look, someone provided scientific evidence that contradicts my worldview. Ignore."









 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join