Is evolution a fact?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 
You're right. A 100 million year old fossilized animal very similar to a Giraffe would be convergent evolution. I'm going to read up on this area of evolution. Thank you.




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



I'm just saying the address example is an example of something being finely tuned.


No, it wasn't a very good argument, I grant you that... but I think I got my point across... maybe...


As for the universe being finely tuned to our form of life, I actually think it is, but you don't think so because you don't believe in a personal God.


I do believe in a personal God... just not the same one as you.


MY problem with the fine tuning argument is that it's not an argument at all.

To say the universe was fine tuned for our form of life, is to say that the Universe was made by god, because the only type of life that exists in this universe (that we know of), is the only type of life that CAN exist in this universe.

IT's a backwards argument.

If the universe had different "Fine Tuning", OUR kind of life wouldn't exist.... but there would be a DIFFERENT form of life, maybe even asking the very same "Fine Tuned" question.

IT's specious reasoning, that implies the exact opposite of what it's proponents actually claim.

It's like saying that your body is fine tuned to fit into your pants.

It's like saying that grass was fine tuned to fit under the blades of a lawnmower.

It's like saying that your hand was fine tuned to fit your computer mouse.

IT's like saying that the laws of thermodynamics was fine tuned to make thermometers read 0 - 212 Fahrenheit.


IT's *BACKWARDS*



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by solomons path
 
You're right. A 100 million year old fossilized animal very similar to a Giraffe would be convergent evolution. I'm going to read up on this area of evolution. Thank you.



No . . . A 100mil year old fossil similar to a giraffe is NOT convergent evolution. I'm not saying, nor did I say, it is. Traits . . . not "like" animals. I still don't think you are getting that.

Birds and bats both have wings and can fly, even though they didn't come from a common ancestor.

Humans and squids both have complex eyes, even though they didn't come from a common ancestor.

Insects and mammals both have mouths and anuses, even though the didn't come from a common ancestor.

That is convergent evolution.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by rockintitz
 


Evolution is considered scientific fact. While that distinction carries merit, it is a long way from actual fact.


Do you even know what a "fact" is?

It is an event, occurrence, observation, or piece of information that can be independently verified. Which means if I say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west . . . anyone can go outside and verify that "fact".


1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. a piece of information



Evolutionary Theory is comprised of millions and millions of facts . . . they happen. Those that "don't believe" in evolution seem to have a problem with someone saying these things happen naturally . . . as opposed to needing the supernatural or an extraterrestrial being.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
If evolution was not real, then pale white british couples would give birth to the random asian or african looking child. But they don't. Because genetic information is inherited from generation to generation.

And since successful genes are the ones that survive, then more of those genes get spread around.

Evolution is so obiously logical and germane to our world. I cannot believe that people would want to dispute it. It is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by rockintitz
 


Evolution is considered scientific fact. While that distinction carries merit, it is a long way from actual fact.


Do you even know what a "fact" is?

It is an event, occurrence, observation, or piece of information that can be independently verified. Which means if I say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west . . . anyone can go outside and verify that "fact".


1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. a piece of information



Evolutionary Theory is comprised of millions and millions of facts . . . they happen. Those that "don't believe" in evolution seem to have a problem with someone saying these things happen naturally . . . as opposed to needing the supernatural or an extraterrestrial being.


Not only do I know what the meaning of fact is, I know how to apply the logic in practical application. You see an actual fact would be that water is wet. In a hundred or thousand years from now, that would still hold true, water is indeed wet. There is no further evidence that could be brought to light to change this, water, will always be wet.

Evolution, much like many, many other scientific facts are merely theory's that the majority of the scientific community feels there is enough supporting data to consider it fact. There is nothing to say that evidence or data discovered in the future will not change these "facts". They are not considered absolute. They are not the same as saying water is wet.


Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent


Do you understand the difference? You see, arrogance is unbecoming of people of science who should know better than anyone to not claim absolutes. We do not yet fundamentally understand the nature of our universe or of our own existence and to assert that there could be no new data in the future that changes our current understanding of evolution is nothing short of folly.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


So then explain to me the following:

- Why are black children not born, at regular and random intervals, to caucasian families?

- Why do your children not look identical to either you or your spouse, or a perfect blending thereof? Why do some children favor other family members more than their parents?

The answers to the above two questions will lead you to understanding the processes behind evolution. We now have genetics. It isn't some mysterious "theory" any more. It is observable, logical fact.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


And once they are born in random interval, they will float to heaven because gravity is just a theory.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Something from nothing ? Don't think so. Intelligence, desire to live, ability to think to choose ? I don't think so. The ability to "know" to eat, to reproduce ? I don't think so. Evolution as basis for life as we know it ? I don't think so. In fact, I don't believe so.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Evolution as a process is a scientific fact. We can measure and observe genetic mutations from generation to generation. We can also observe natural selection in action. Since evolution is defined by genetic changes sorted by natural selection, it is a fact. End of story. Now the THEORY of evolution (modern synthesis) is based on this fact plus tons of others. It also contains working hypotheses, so you can't say the theory of evolution is an absolute fact, even though the process of evolution is. Scientists do not debate the existence of evolution, they debate small details like dates and time frames. The same holds true with the theory of gravity. We know that gravity exists, but there are still several hypotheses that are being worked on. That's how scientific theories work. They base it off a proven fact and try to learn as much as they can about the process and how it works.

So is evolution a fact? Yes.
Do we know every single detail about it? No.
Does that falsify evolution or suggest it is not fact? No.
Is gravity a fact? yes.
Do we know every single detail about it? No.
Does that falsify gravity or suggest it is wrong? No.

I hope that clears up all this terminology talk. Denying the fact of evolution is just as silly as denying the fact of gravity.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Helious
 


So then explain to me the following:

- Why are black children not born, at regular and random intervals, to caucasian families?

- Why do your children not look identical to either you or your spouse, or a perfect blending thereof? Why do some children favor other family members more than their parents?

The answers to the above two questions will lead you to understanding the processes behind evolution. We now have genetics. It isn't some mysterious "theory" any more. It is observable, logical fact.


Oh, I see. Then you mean to claim now that we have genetics we fully understand them and there could not possibly be any new developments within the field that could lead to any changes regarding what we currently believe as scientific fact? If so, that is a bold claim to make.

How many changes in understanding has science been presented while researching DNA? I could list some of the fundamental changes in understanding for you but I'm sure you can research it if your interested.

You can't seriously mean to tell me that you are so entrenched in the idea of evolution that there is no way to see over the side and see any other possibility at all. I have a hard time believing that. I respect conviction but question it's merit in respect to ever changing circumstance and knowledge. It's honestly no different than religious fanaticism to hold evolution as absolute fact, to view it the same way as saying water is wet, it's fallacy.

When you don't understand the nature of existence and by saying that I mean to say that we can't be sure if we are living in a holographic reality a simulation or are a reflection of information circling the event horizon disc of a black hole and actually live in a state of 2D, it becomes hazy to dabble in human and Earthy origins.

Furthermore, we do not know our origins and how life came to be on Earth, we can guess, even make good guesses, educated ones, but..... We just don't know. How can we claim to know that evolution is fact, an absolute and unchanging fact when we don't know any of the above.

The answer is, we shouldn't. Believing in evolution is fine, it's scientific basis is firm and has an immense amount of supporting data but to believe it to the point that you suspend any possibility, any at all of it being wrong or incomplete or unchanging is in my opinion, quite foolish.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 

It's not a fact because something cannot from nothing.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

arrogance is unbecoming of people of science who should know better than anyone to not claim absolutes. We do not yet fundamentally understand the nature of our universe or of our own existence and to assert that there could be no new data in the future that changes our current understanding of evolution is nothing short of folly.


I completely agree, seems we're on the same page here.


You see an actual fact would be that water is wet. In a hundred or thousand years from now, that would still hold true, water is indeed wet. There is no further evidence that could be brought to light to change this, water, will always be wet.


Oh.........nvm



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Or...? There could be another answer - couldn't there?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Helious

arrogance is unbecoming of people of science who should know better than anyone to not claim absolutes. We do not yet fundamentally understand the nature of our universe or of our own existence and to assert that there could be no new data in the future that changes our current understanding of evolution is nothing short of folly.


I completely agree, seems we're on the same page here.


You see an actual fact would be that water is wet. In a hundred or thousand years from now, that would still hold true, water is indeed wet. There is no further evidence that could be brought to light to change this, water, will always be wet.


Oh.........nvm


I see what you did there! Your point of contention however is nothing more than semantics as everything is relative and that being the case, I think we can both agree that we have a much higher chance (Astronomical) of seeing new developments of information changing key fundamentals of the process of evolution than we do of seeing water cease to be wet.

However, in the case it fails to be wet one day, I would be all to happy to be wrong.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious


Oh, I see. Then you mean to claim now that we have genetics we fully understand them and there could not possibly be any new developments within the field that could lead to any changes regarding what we currently believe as scientific fact? If so, that is a bold claim to make.


Quit that. You are being intellectually dishonest. If your viewpoint is worthy of consideration, then you can present it without gross misstatements. Either that, or you really are too dim to understand. And I don't believe that. So just quit it. If you want to talk, then talk genuinely. Because I will not participate otherwise.

And, if it needs to be said, please point where I said anything of the sort. And once you are done not finding it, I hope you can rejoin this conversation like the intelligent human being you are.



How many changes in understanding has science been presented while researching DNA? I could list some of the fundamental changes in understanding for you but I'm sure you can research it if your interested.


And tell me 1 change that would refute evolution. Thats right, you can't.




You can't seriously mean to tell me that you are so entrenched in the idea of evolution that there is no way to see over the side and see any other possibility at all. I have a hard time believing that. I respect conviction but question it's merit in respect to ever changing circumstance and knowledge. It's honestly no different than religious fanaticism to hold evolution as absolute fact, to view it the same way as saying water is wet, it's fallacy.

When you don't understand the nature of existence and by saying that I mean to say that we can't be sure if we are living in a holographic reality a simulation or are a reflection of information circling the event horizon disc of a black hole and actually live in a state of 2D, it becomes hazy to dabble in human and Earthy origins.


I am saying that the methodology is obvious. We have used it for thousands of years, calling it animal husbandry. I am not explaining how dinosaurs became birds here, only pointing out that the basis of evolution is grounded in easily observed facts. Everything you say is wholly unobservable. If better facts come my way, I will pay attention. Until then.....i stand by my assertion that it is morose to dispute them.

Furthermore, we do not know our origins and how life came to be on Earth, we can guess, even make good guesses, educated ones, but..... We just don't know. How can we claim to know that evolution is fact, an absolute and unchanging fact when we don't know any of the above.

The answer is, we shouldn't. Believing in evolution is fine, it's scientific basis is firm and has an immense amount of supporting data but to believe it to the point that you suspend any possibility, any at all of it being wrong or incomplete or unchanging is in my opinion, quite foolish.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
You can't seriously mean to tell me that you are so entrenched in the idea of evolution that there is no way to see over the side and see any other possibility at all. I have a hard time believing that. I respect conviction but question it's merit in respect to ever changing circumstance and knowledge. It's honestly no different than religious fanaticism to hold evolution as absolute fact, to view it the same way as saying water is wet, it's fallacy.

What other side is there? There isn't any other explanation for the diversity of life on earth that's backed by science, other than evolution. If you have another side, by all means, present it. It seems more like you are still confusing things with terminology and evolution itself. It doesn't require faith to believe scientific fact, in which the process of evolution is, which I clearly stated above in my response, but it seems it was ignored.


When you don't understand the nature of existence and by saying that I mean to say that we can't be sure if we are living in a holographic reality a simulation or are a reflection of information circling the event horizon disc of a black hole and actually live in a state of 2D, it becomes hazy to dabble in human and Earthy origins.

Furthermore, we do not know our origins and how life came to be on Earth, we can guess, even make good guesses, educated ones, but..... We just don't know.

That has nothing to do with evolution. You are talking about origins and the state of the universe. Not knowing these answers doesn't somehow make evolution less viable.


How can we claim to know that evolution is fact, an absolute and unchanging fact when we don't know any of the above.

Absolute unchanging fact? I hate to tell you this, but the earth (and universe) is in a constant state of change. What is fact today, may not be fact tomorrow, but the process of evolution is solid, and unless genetic mutations stop happening, it will continue to be a fact.


The answer is, we shouldn't. Believing in evolution is fine, it's scientific basis is firm and has an immense amount of supporting data but to believe it to the point that you suspend any possibility, any at all of it being wrong or incomplete or unchanging is in my opinion, quite foolish.


I don't think that's what people are saying. They are saying that evolution is a fact, not that god doesn't exist or that all other unknown possibilities are automatically false. It's not arrogance, it's simply following the facts. It's logical. Evolution is a fact just like gravity. Denying it or suggesting that it's not fact because we don't know every single detail about every single part of it, is very foolish.

edit on 3-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to [url= by Helious[/url]
 


The difference in the chances between evolution being shown to be false and water being shown to be anything other than wet are so small, so insignificant that you're not really making much of a point.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by Helious[/url]
 


The difference in the chances between evolution being shown to be false and water being shown to be anything other than wet are so small, so insignificant that you're not really making much of a point.


Oh really? So then, there is almost no difference in the chance of:

A) Attaining new data and discovery relating to genetics and DNA that could possibly impact our perception and understanding of evolution or our finally being successful at finding other life in the universe, possibly even intelligent and acquiring a new understanding of fundamental concepts that we have not yet been able to grasp that could give us new insight on our origins and quite possibly change how we currently view human life and our initial conception.

or

B) A complete and drastic fundamental change to the very nature of reality that would be necessary to disprove that water is wet.

And I'm the one who's not making any sense? Heh
edit on 3-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by Helious[/url]
 


The difference in the chances between evolution being shown to be false and water being shown to be anything other than wet are so small, so insignificant that you're not really making much of a point.


Oh really? So then, there is almost no difference in the chance of:

A) Attaining new data and discovery relating to genetics and DNA that could possibly impact our perception and understanding of evolution or our finally being successful at finding other life in the universe, possibly even intelligent and acquiring a new understanding of fundamental concepts that we have not yet been able to grasp that could give us new insight on our origins and quite possibly change how we currently view human life and our initial conception.

or

B) A complete and drastic fundamental change to the very nature of reality that would be necessary to disprove that water is wet.

And I'm the one who's not making any sense? Heh
edit on 3-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



Water isn't wet.....

aaaaaiiiieeeeeee there's been a 'complete and drastic fundamental change to the very nature of reality'

Blowing peoples minds is always a pleasure





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join