Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:51 PM
20 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is science
platypus
Member (Idle past 3834 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 1 of 200 (363648)
11-13-2006 6:40 PM


Evolution provides a mechanism for describing how the world got to be the way it is today. This allows evolution to explain phenomena in our world. Why do some species look more alike than others? Evolution claims that they are related phylogenetically. Creationism, as far as I know, makes no attempt to explain this basic trend, and many others. Why did God make creatures that look alike, or better yet, make creatures that have large amounts of DNA in common?

This is the defining feature of a scientific theory- employing a mechanism for explanation of data. Creationism is mostly composed of arguments against evolution- irreducible complexity, etc. Yet these arguments are simply against ToE, not arguments for another scientific theory. Saying that "God made it" is not an explanation, please explain where, when, and how did he make it? Why did his act of creation lead to cerain trends, like the inter-relatedness of species? Evolution simply cannot scientifically be replaced by Creationism until Creationism has a theory which can explain the why the world is as it is today.

On further point about the displacement of scientific theories- in many cases, a new scientific theory does not completely throw out an old one. For example, General Relativity did not throw out Newtonian physics. Rather, a major point that lead to the acceptance of general relativity was its confirmation of Newtonian laws for slow-moving objects in a fixed reference frame. In other words, the new theory was only accepted after it proved the old theory to be true in the cases that we commonly use the old theory for. This is not always the case, but describes many of the "revisions" to science in the last 200 years.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2006 9:32 AM platypus has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 11-17-2006 8:46 AM platypus has responded
 Message 102 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 5:32 PM platypus has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2 of 200 (364047)
11-16-2006 7:56 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 200 (364058)
11-16-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by platypus
11-13-2006 6:40 PM


Allow me to disclaim that creationism offers a better explanation than the Theory of Evolution.

I think the ToE is our best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Creationism, as far as I know, makes no attempt to explain this basic trend, and many others. Why did God make creatures that look alike, or better yet, make creatures that have large amounts of DNA in common?

I think the explanation is that the designer used some kind of template, so to speak type. Some people see the likeness of the creatures as evidence that the creatures were designed, not evolved. The likeness, to them, suggests intellegence in the designer. Animals share a basic body plan, most likely from common decent, but others see this as remenants of an original design.

Saying that "God made it" is not an explanation, please explain where, when, and how did he make it?

It's all in the Bible, in the first two chapters :D

ABE: that was a joke

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by platypus, posted 11-13-2006 6:40 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 4 of 200 (364219)
11-16-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2006 9:32 AM


Up to this present date, no one has been able to duplicate evolution in a labratory environment. In order for something to be scientifically true, it needs to be duplicated. It can't be. I realize that neither can creation. This is where faith comes in. It is much easier to believe in a loving God that created us than we are purely by chance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2006 9:32 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 11-16-2006 9:50 PM DivineBeginning has responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2006 10:20 PM DivineBeginning has responded
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2006 11:50 AM DivineBeginning has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 5 of 200 (364222)
11-16-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 9:46 PM


quote:
In order for something to be scientifically true, it needs to be duplicated.

This is false.

In order for a theory to be scientifically confirmed, it must predict that some observable phenomemon that is subsequently observed. The theory of evolution has done exactly this. It is a very well confirmed theory.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:46 PM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:56 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 6 of 200 (364224)
11-16-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
11-16-2006 9:50 PM


What???
I challenge you to send me documentation where evolutionary steps were predicted and observed. Who predicted the supposed changes from apes to man? Who observed it. See what I mean? No one has ever witnessed it happening. The mathematical odds are greatly against any macro or micro mutations occuring. Even if they did, the chances of the mutations being beneficial are too small.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 11-16-2006 9:50 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-16-2006 10:32 PM DivineBeginning has responded
 Message 12 by fallacycop, posted 11-16-2006 10:52 PM DivineBeginning has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 7 of 200 (364233)
11-16-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 9:46 PM


... no one has been able to duplicate evolution in a labratory environment.

Evolution is the change in species over time. This has been done in the labratory many many many times. There are innumerable examples of speciation in lab experiments. There are also many examples of speciation in the wild.

Evolution thus has been duplicated in the labratory environment, thus your comment is refuted.

If what you mean to say is abiogenesis, then that is a different matter, but we are still stuck with 3.5 billion years of evolution of life on this planet, whether abiogensis occurred by natural means or was "induced" by some supernatural means.

Message 6
I challenge you to send me documentation where evolutionary steps were predicted and observed.

Evolution also predicts that intermediate forms will be found between fossils and levels of development. In specific cases this can be used to predict where on the globe, when in the stratigraphic layers, and what kind of intermediate fossil can be found.

Tiktaalik is one example of just this kind of find predicted by those conditions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html

quote:
"We knew that the rocks on Ellesmere Island offered a glimpse into the right time period and were formed in the right kinds of environments to provide the potential for finding fossils documenting this important evolutionary transition."

When Tiktaalik lived, the Canadian Arctic region was part of a land mass which straddled the equator. Like the Amazon basin today, it had a subtropical climate and the animal lived in small streams.


They went to a specific location, specifically looking for a specific transitional organism at at place where the specific time and the specific habitat would have been right - predicted by the evolution of organisms from sea to land.

This is where faith comes in.

It isn't faith to deny the existence of evidence for evolution and it isn't faith to deny the existence of evidence for an old earth.

Enjoy.

ps - welcome to the fray DivineBeginning



type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:46 PM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 10:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 8 of 200 (364237)
11-16-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
11-16-2006 10:20 PM


Thanks for the welcome!! that was unexpected. I trust you have access to dates and locations of these momentous occasions where speciation occurred in a lab environment. Right? Something this huge scientifically should be documented. The problem with abiogenesis is that an animal left on its own will never in the realm of probability mutate significantly enough to make a difference. The astronomically high number of cells in advanced animals combined with the possible amount of permutations leads to impossible odds. Being a mathematics professor, I would think that you would be able to see this. Mathematics essentially doesn't allow for the possibility of helpful mutations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2006 10:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2006 11:33 PM DivineBeginning has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 9 of 200 (364238)
11-16-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 9:56 PM


Re: What???
Here is an example of a prediction based on the theory of evolution (it is my favorite one):

If all species evolved from a common ancestor, then it should be possible to categorize the species in a nested hierarchical classification scheme.

This prediction has been confirmed; in fact, Linnaeus had already started his classification method long before Darwin produced his work. Subsequent new species have always had a place some place in this nested hierarchy.

Now here is where repeatability comes in: anyone can go out, examine closely representative members of various species and come up with her own classification scheme. Yet every attempt to do so has always yielded the exact same nested hierarchies. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.

Now under any other theory of biological origins, like, say, special creation, there is no reason for the species to fit into one and only one hierarchical classification scheme. A special creator could have created any species she wanted with whatever mix of characteristics she wanted. Yet all the species known fit into one and only one nested hierarchical scheme.

The theory of evolution predicts this. If common descent is true, then no other scheme is possible. And this is exactly what we see.

Here is a web page that lists many other predictions made under the theory of evolution and how those predictions have been confirmed.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:56 PM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 10:36 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 10 of 200 (364240)
11-16-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
11-16-2006 10:32 PM


Re: What???
Doesn't the theory of evolution also involve something arrising from nothing? Wasn't this disproven by Pastuer?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-16-2006 10:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 11-16-2006 10:46 PM DivineBeginning has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 11 of 200 (364242)
11-16-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 10:36 PM


Re: What???
quote:
Doesn't the theory of evolution also involve something arrising from nothing?

No. Here is a post I wrote explaining very briefly what the theory of evolution involves.

-

quote:
Wasn't this disproven by Pastuer?

No. All Pasteur showed was that the phenomenon of putrification (rotting) results from contamination by microorganisms in the environment.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Fixed link.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 10:36 PM DivineBeginning has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3600 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 12 of 200 (364243)
11-16-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 9:56 PM


Re: What???
DivineBeginning writes:

Who predicted the supposed changes from apes to man? Who observed it. See what I mean?

Direct witness is not the only possible way to know about what has happened in the past.
For instance, in modern courts a piece of forensic evidence is often considered more reliable then an eye witness (Eye witnesses can be biased, have failable memories or even lie)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 9:56 PM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 11:00 PM fallacycop has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 13 of 200 (364244)
11-16-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by fallacycop
11-16-2006 10:52 PM


Re: What???
So does this mean that the scientists that "see" these evolutionary changes in the lab could be lying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by fallacycop, posted 11-16-2006 10:52 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by fallacycop, posted 11-16-2006 11:10 PM DivineBeginning has responded

    
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3600 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 14 of 200 (364245)
11-16-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by DivineBeginning
11-16-2006 11:00 PM


Re: What???
So does this mean that the scientists that "see" these evolutionary changes in the lab could be lying.

Individual scientists sometimes do lie (They are human beings too).
That`s just but one among many reasons why peer reviewing is considered an essential part of the scientific process.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 11:00 PM DivineBeginning has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DivineBeginning, posted 11-16-2006 11:30 PM fallacycop has responded

  
DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 15 of 200 (364248)
11-16-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by fallacycop
11-16-2006 11:10 PM


Re: What???
Yes, I am aware they lie...especially in regards to radioactive dating. This is the biggest joke ever to hit the field. The numbers and data can be manipulated so as to achieve a desired result. This was explained to me by a scientist..Jay Gould.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by fallacycop, posted 11-16-2006 11:10 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by fallacycop, posted 11-16-2006 11:55 PM DivineBeginning has responded
 Message 30 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-17-2006 12:32 AM DivineBeginning has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019