|
Posts:
2
Registered:
8/2/06
|
|
(1 of 20)
Aug 2, 2006 1:28 PM
|
One of the elements that comprise any theory is that they can be falsified
With any other concept, the mere weight of contrary evidence can falsify a theory.
Example: If I said ALL rodents are gray, my tests and evidence would have to support that hypothesis. Once they do, I begin to enter the realm of theory.
Let’s say years later, another researcher discovers white rodents on an island somewhere, my theory would be called into question and one of three things would happen:
a) I could adjust my model by stating ‘all rodents are gray except for ones found on the island in question.’ My theory survives.
b) I could concede and say ‘not all rodents are gray.’ My theory dies.
c) Or I could say the researchers on that island are inept and don’t know what they’re doing!
In any case, if more multi color rodent sightings were to occur my theory would eventually sink. Not so with evolution! I noticed that no matter what contrary observation is thrown at the evolutionary paradigm that it sort of “evolves” and adjusts to fit any test or scrutiny. Therefore, how can it be truly called a theory?
The paradigm has been remodeled so many times and adjusted its hard to call it a theory anymore. Let’s face it. I’ve spoken to many evolutionists and as far as they’re concerned, no line of evidence would ever make them let go of this. Doesn’t that make it more of a philosophy? Doesn’t ID and Creationism also fit this?
|
|
|
Posts:
19
From:
Keene, NH, USA
Registered:
9/7/05
|
|
(2 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Aug 4, 2006 2:28 PM
|
Evolution is a theory in the sense that there is no mathematical proof of it. The theory of relativity is also still a theory, but it has been tested by experiment to better than one part in ten thousand, and still no one talks of a "law of relativity."
There is a preponderence of evidence for evolution, like relativity - this includes DNA, which shows old codes from earlier species that are not used by certain species. Ie., inside our body are the instructions to build gills and webbed feet, etc. We don't have those because that part of the DNA is not used, but they are there. Why would old instructions still be written in our DNA if the DNA had not evolved from earlier forms? What about unused body parts, like the appendix, which is useless (or even dangerous) for humans, but essential for cows?
As for creationism or ID, that is philosophy, because there is NO evidence whatsoever to back it up (someone will say the Bible, but I'm talking about scientific proof).
Often scientists mean something else than the public does when they use words. The word "theory" does not mean the same thing to a scientist as it does to the general public.
JM
--
Edited by jgmaynard at 08/04/2006 2:30 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
18
From:
U.S.
Registered:
8/9/06
|
|
(3 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Aug 10, 2006 5:56 AM
|
Both creationism and evolution theories have evolved over time. They have both changed with advances in math, science, and social behavior. To say the bible is static and never changes is asinine. The bible and its meaning has changed thousands of times over the years, with new religions and beliefs stemming from it constantly. It changes to fulfill the needs of man. Even today the bible (and other religious writings) are used to justify murder, oppression, and conquest.
Please, do not flame me and call me and evolutionary atheist, for that is not the truth. I am simply stating an obvious observation. The answers to evolution vs. creationism will only be found when people stop trying to disprove each other. Yes, science and math have a long way to go, but these are relatively new concepts. They will continue to change over time with new discoveries. Just because all the answers are not right in front of you right now does not mean they don't exist. Who knows, both theories may be running on intersecting tracts, and one day may meet each other. Do not discredit the facts that are right in front of you.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
Brooklyn
Registered:
9/8/06
|
|
(4 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Sep 8, 2006 10:59 PM
|
The Scientific Method:
1) State a specific problem
2) Collect all the data relevant to that problem.
3) Propose a hypothesis. (may be more than one, and must be testable)
4) Test hypothesis
5) Successful hypothesis = theory
6) Theory is tested against new observations.
A scientific theory is simply a hypothesis that has been constantly tested and has not failed any tests.
Scientific theories can never be proven only disproven. If a theory is disproven it MUST be abandoned and replaced with a better theory.
Although scientific theories cannot be proven and thus never become a law, the more tests are conducted over time against new observations the more robust the theory becomes.
In the case of Human development (Evolution) and other sciences, most people unfortunately were never taught or taught well these basic principles. This is why they misinterpret the word theory. Crudely stated, a scientist does not simply pull a theory out of their ass as people generally believe. It is painstaking work to uncover the truth. And that truth is uncovered by adhering strictly to the Scientific Method.
Intelligent Design (Creationism) can never be tested and there is no data to collect. Therefore, is can never be a science. Thus, it has no place in a science curriculum.
The issue in evolution is really focused on the slow progressive transition from Ape to Man. It is very well established how any life in general on earth came to be in the scientific community. Here are clues, Atoms to Molecules to Amino Acids to Bacteria and so on...
The concept of time and how living creatures came to be is a difficult thing to grasp for everyone, including myself. The human brain cannot really register the small and large scales beyond the Hundred thousands range. the Earth was formed 4.5 BILLION years ago. We know this thanks to Chondritic composition (simply stated, rocks that are leftovers from the formation of our solar system). To our feeble life span it is an eternity and plenty of time for life to take place and evolve.
It is widely know now from Darwin's diaries that he was torment during his voyage home about the relationships of his findings and his religious beliefs. Just because Darwin may of had reservation about evolution towards the end of his life does not mean he was not on to something. As it turns out he was, and the study of evolution took off. Also, there where other researchers at the time of Darwin who had similar theories about human evolution. Evolution was not exclusively the invention of Darwin. As with all advances in though, there are revolutionary ideas that challenge the conventional wisdom at one time. An example of this is everything that took place in the Renaissance period.
To conclude this brief and incomplete contribution to this discussion, I will state that Evolution is a robust theory that has stood the test of time. Yes, some areas are incomplete and less understood. But, it is the nature of science to add, discard or improve upon a robust theory. It is called progress. It may be true, however improbable, that evolution of humans did not take place as what the curret theory of evolution describes. But, I doubt that a superstious, untestable and unobservable concept like "intelligent design" (creationism) will replace it.
On a final note. If intelligent design creationism)involve some omnipotent being controlling the evolution of humans, then why is it solely in the realm and discussed in terms of god? Why not aliens?? Surely they are intelligent and have the capacity to design creatures like humans.
Thank you for everyone's time.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
1/6/07
|
|
(5 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jan 6, 2007 2:58 PM
|
My former screen name was "Searching56" but I lost my password. Oh well...
> Intelligent Design (Creationism) can never be tested
> and there is no data to collect. Therefore, it can
> never be a science. Thus, it has no place in a
> science curriculum.
Evolution can't be tested either; There's a good journal by Carl Woese (bio-chemist) about that.
'Thinkingman' has through some mysterious insight determined that data cannot be collected to support ID. Not spoken like a scientist at all.
The proper approach to any hypothesis is not to presume evidence exists or not, merely to collect data and determine what it tells us.
The problem arises when data is scrutinized through our philosophical lens. Because ‘Thinkingman’s mind is predisposed to except evolution as the only logical answer (as demonstrated in the comment above), naturally he sees all the data collected as evidence in support of evolution. Mind you, I’m not saying ID proponents are any better, but please acknowledge you’re the same.
> The issue in evolution is really focused on the slow
> progressive transition from Ape to Man. It is very
> well established how any life in general on earth
> came to be in the scientific community. Here are
> clues, Atoms to Molecules to Amino Acids to Bacteria
> and so on...
Fine, I'm not disagreeing about how scientists in general see things.
> The concept of time and how living creatures came to
> be is a difficult thing to grasp for everyone,
> including myself. The human brain cannot really
> register the small and large scales beyond the
> Hundred thousands range.
ok, I agree...
> The Earth was formed 4.5
> BILLION years ago. We know this thanks to Chondritic
> composition (simply stated, rocks that are leftovers
> from the formation of our solar system). To our
> feeble life span it is an eternity and plenty of time
> for life to take place and evolve.
Our short lifespan illustrates another point. We don't live long enough to perform any meaningful tests regarding the age of earth or the solar system. The data is inconclusive. However, I don't believe in Young Earth either.
> There
> where other researchers at the time of Darwin who had
> similar theories about human evolution.
This is exactly what I’m trying to illustrate. Thoughts on evolution originated during the naturalist movement (which was a philisophical, not a scientific movement)of the early 19th century. In fact, Darwins father Erasmus was a part of that movement and wrote quite a bit about the transition of living forms from one to another. Charles Darwin merely put that philosophy into a scientific context.
> To conclude this brief and incomplete contribution to
> this discussion, I will state that Evolution is a
> robust theory that has stood the test of time. Yes,
> some areas are incomplete and less understood. But,
> it is the nature of science to add, discard or
> improve upon a robust theory. It is called progress.
Actually scientists have only added more confusions if anything; The bio-chemist Carl Woese has some interesting comments in his journals regarding this subject.
> It may be true, however improbable, that evolution of
> humans did not take place as what the curret theory
> of evolution describes. But, I doubt that a
> superstious, untestable and unobservable concept like
> "intelligent design" (creationism) will replace it.
Again, evolution cannot be debunked therefore it is not a theory. The philosophy of the 19th century is well ingrained in the minds of scientists. No line of evidence would convince them otherwise.
|
|
|
Posts:
4
Registered:
12/25/06
|
|
(6 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jan 6, 2007 6:14 PM
|
Theory of evolution is a COMPLETE & ABSOLUTE LIE. It has been DISPROVEN. There is NO PROOF of MACRO evolution, evo from one species to another, NONE, NADA.
DNA DISPROVES MACRO evolution.
I don't care how many billions of years evolution whackos give earth they can't account the millions of varied species to have happened my accident.
99% of mutations are harmful. So that mutations helped evolution is clearly wrong too.
Evolution whackos will NEVER admit to intelligent design. If they do then they have to admit there is a God & that they will be accountable for their God hating lifestyles & they will end up in hell for eternity. That scares them to death. For this reason all these anti God evolution kooks will go to any length to lie about evolution & deny the facts that disprove it.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
1/6/07
|
|
(7 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jan 6, 2007 6:46 PM
|
> Theory of evolution is a COMPLETE & ABSOLUTE LIE. It
> has been DISPROVEN. There is NO PROOF of MACRO
> evolution, evo from one species to another, NONE,
> NADA.
Scientists don't use terms like "proof", but I do agree that their so-called evidence is only imaginary.
> DNA DISPROVES MACRO evolution.
Research has shown that the Genome shows a degree of plasticity but besides that has extreme fidelity. Also journals have shown that the so-called "junk" DNA has recently discovered regulatury functions and most likely other functions dispelling the notion of DNA fossils within us (at least for me anyway). Regardless, evolutionists will always find someway to bend new data to support their beliefs.
But why should people who believe in God need science to validate our belief? We don't. The landscape of science is always changing, but God's word does not. The bible has the answers regarding our history, not science.
> I don't care how many billions of years evolution
> whackos give earth they can't account the millions of
> varied species to have happened my accident.
Scientists can't account for a great deal of things. When they can start predicting the weather more accurately then maybe they can start speaking about conditions billions of years ago.
|
|
|
Posts:
60
Registered:
4/11/07
|
|
(8 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Apr 12, 2007 12:18 PM
|
No, it's a new sneaker put out by Nike.
duh.
|
|
|
Posts:
318
From:
Yucaipa, Ca.
Registered:
4/9/08
|
|
(9 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jun 24, 2008 12:26 AM
|
|
Finally, someone who actually understands how science works, and also how our colloquial usage differs fundamentally from how the real scientists use the term. Most people use the term "theory", how scientists understand hypothesis. Everybody is always saying, "Evolution is only a theory". Yeah, like the 'Theory of Gravity'! Go jump of a cliff if you don't believe. 'Thinkingman' got it right, theories are hypotheses that have been tested time and time again, and never been proven to be wrong! Like Evolution!
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
Ohio
Registered:
8/3/08
|
|
(10 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Aug 3, 2008 9:43 AM
|
Evolution is a hoax and they all know it. I will prove it now. According to many scientists evolution is a process of trial and error. Something will evolve according to its past and make changes to better suit its habitat. They cannot explain how it?s done so they say ?Time? is the factor; millions or billions of years is commonly heard.
However, there is one very important matter that is overlooked. Memory. Nothing could evolve without being able to remember. It wouldn?t know what changes to make. How could it have memory until memory evolved? Memory would have had to be present for anything to ever take place. This is a big contradiction in the evolution theory. Memory could not have evolved without memory already being present. What are these scientists thinking? It doesn?t matter what fancy wording they use to describe a process, this fact cannot be argued against. There own theory proves them wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
158
Registered:
9/5/07
|
|
(11 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Dec 5, 2008 6:53 AM
|
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Evolution, is an observed fact. Natural Selection explains how the fact of evolution occurrs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Stephen J. Gould - Evolutionary Biologist, Paleontologist, Writer: Popular Science, Professor: Harvard University
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.
Further:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
Theodosius Dobzhansky - Geneticist, Evolutionary Biologist
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
R. C. Lewontin - Evolutionary Biologist, Geneticist, Highly Respected Scientist Among Moleculer Biology
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
Neil A. Campbell - American ScientistToday, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
H. J. Muller - American Geneticist, Awarded The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,904
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(12 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Dec 31, 2008 9:51 PM
|
|
yes, it is theory. There are many theories.Theories are based on facts. Sponteous generation was a theory. It was based on the facts that maggots appear in dead meat. It was said that living things come from inanimated objects. It was proven wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
1/31/09
|
|
(13 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jan 31, 2009 4:59 PM
|
|
No, not now, and never will be...end of story.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
1/31/09
|
|
(14 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Jan 31, 2009 5:10 PM
|
|
Gods word reads He is the Alpha and the Omega...He has created life forms in DNA that continue for eternity in the other direction, that it would take an eternity to explore and the same as the universe...an eternity. Thats why He is the Beginning and the End...get the picture??? If not read the Book of Job, theres indisputable proof of His being the Creator of Heavens and Earth and the Universe...and thats not theory, its fact and historically documented through ancient scribes and archeological findings and recorded by human civilizations cultures. Those facts are available on many websites and historical institutes should one want to researc. One in particular is the Institute of Creation Research. Infact Einstein and many other scientist through their years of scientific research had concluded after many years of study that there could only have been a Creator such as God to create all that is here and abroad.
|
|
|
Posts:
614
From:
History Dept. The Library, late night volunteer maintenance crew
Registered:
1/10/09
|
|
(15 of 20)
Re: Is Evolution a theory?
Feb 6, 2009 4:11 PM
|
namvett527 said,
Theory of evolution is a COMPLETE & ABSOLUTE LIE. It has been DISPROVEN. There is NO PROOF of MACRO evolution, evo from one species to another, NONE, NADA.
I couldn't agree more, but I might as well quote you anyway. It's a theory, only, no doubt, and a very poor one at that.
I?ve found, through research, that I?m but one of very many who do not believe the theory of evolution to be of a credible enough source, whereas it can be taken as an unquestionable fact. In fact many scientists go along with the origin of species hypothesis only because they don?t want to believe in God, not because they actually agree. There are countless disputes in this more than debatable idea that everything in a massive empty set just happened to form a big rock one eon or another, exploded the next, and then became everything surrounding us today to all that?s growing at the bottom of the ocean as well, not to mention the other side of the unknown universe. Give me a break, with an oink-oink here and a Chickenasaurus Rex there, here a duck, there an? oh bother. If you know the first thing about DNA then you will be the first to admit, there is no possible way this can be so. It seems to be taken as a given by those supporting the theory of evolution that the universe and everything in it is expanding or evolving continually because of the big bang theory. I myself just can't get by the question of 'Who pulled the trigger (and why)'? Do you know what I mean? Come on now, seriously, we have to at least address that thought. Not to mention, the gun had to come from somewhere even if in fact the materials, which they're made out of could have possibly been recycled over and over again.
Furthermore, carbon-14 dating methods are only accurate when taken back to the last global disaster, then the measurements altered in such exponential patterns, while throwing things so far off balance, that you?re just going to have to reexamine the big picture. The elements of time and nature have altered courses and changed drastically on a cellestial scale, many times. Things have not always been as they now appear.
If you research further you'll find that I?m not the first to conceive the possibility, but I will second the notions that Darwin dabbled with a little too much opium. And as a citizen of the USA, I will retain the right to think whatever I want, no matter who agrees or not. It's a God given right and a constitutional one at that. Regardless one individuals religious preference or if none at all, it?s far more than high time everyone stops to consider the way they act, instead. There are many groups representing titles and organizations of various characteristics all over this world. You can claim any or none of them and call yourself whatever you want. However, what really makes a man or a woman comes down to how they treat one another. I won?t tell you what to think, but it?s time to start watching those P?s and Q?s. Correct me if I?m wrong, but every founding father from Washington to Roosevelt to present day would have sided with me and pro-creation. They founded this great country on their faith in God and what they believed. One mention of the word prayer in school now days and its sue time. I've heard some in charge of the education of our children profess that those, who disagree with evolution in the education field are nothing but a laughing stock of the nation. Let?s get something straight right now, nearly 95% of the entire world believes in one form of a supreme being or another. Who is the minority? You?ve got the right to believe whatever you like, right or wrong, but you don?t have the right to shove your misconceived concepts down our children?s throats. They have the right to make up their own mind. Don?t hide the truth from them. Sound familiar? I would think so. That?s exactly what pro-evolutionists have been accusing creationists of doing ever since the beginning of this 'great debate'. What kind of person sneaks into school and steals a prayer or hope for better days away from your child, while you?re hard at work trying to provide them a living. Separation of church and state was NEVER meant to take away our children?s freedom of choice, and it?s time for everyone to wake up and take a good look in the mirror. I don?t know what you see staring back at you, and say what you want about a monkeys uncle, but there?s no gorilla?s or orangutan?s hanging around my family tree.
|
|
|
|
|
