|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,816 Year: 4,073/9,624 Month: 944/974 Week: 271/286 Day: 32/46 Hour: 4/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Jon.
quote: Indeed. But the point is that the theory of evolution is not just something people want to believe, and people aren't just forcing some interpretation onto the evidence to justify this. Evolution is a natural, reasonable inference based on the data that we have. Unlike, say, young earth creationism. The evidence is pretty uniequivocal that the earth, the universe, and the history of life is billions of years old, that the species evolved from earlier species, and that there was no global flood that occurred in historic times. One has to force a different interpretation onto the evidence (and usually one has to ignore huge swaths of it) in order to maintain a belief in a literal Genesis that one is not willing to drop. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City_on_a_Hill Junior Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
And theory(ies), based on observation, and testing of the theory(ies), and refining the theory(ies) as evidence invalidates some concepts and validates others. This is the way science is done. When evolution does this it IS science -- by definition. But, observation is the foundation for science and scientific theories. Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated. For instance the observation that there are variations within every population of every species, and that there are more offspring produced than needed. The theory of natural selection says only those best able to survive and reproduce will do better than those least able to survive and reproduce at the critical job of survival and reproduction. This is tested and validated. Yes, the theory of natural selection is a scientific one. However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Likewise we can state a theory of evolution that the hereditary characteristics within populations of breeding organisms change over time. This fits observations and tests and has been validated. Biological evolution and the theory of Evolution are quite different things. Biological evolution is the change over time in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time. The "Theory" of Evolution is an explanation of the origin of species of plants and animals. We can also use the fossil evidence as a test of this theory: does the fossil evidence show change within species over time? Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred. That would support Biological evolution and not the general theory of evolution. This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present. Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon. You can't observe, repeat or test the past. You can only speculate. Denial of evidence is not a re-interpretation. Ignoring parts of the evidence is not a re-interpretation. It is easy to make "interpretations" of things you want to believe - you can "interpret" evidence to show the sun orbits a flat earth if you want to - but the TEST of the "interpretations" is whether they explain all the evidence and whether there is evidence that contradicts the "interpretations" that is not dealt with. All facts are interpreted. Evidence does not speak for itself. We make basic assumptions to explain the evidence. The question is which model best explains the evidence available. For instance: the many layers of forams in their different sedimentary layers can be "interpreted" as being deposited by some mythic flood or other, but this does NOT explain the separation of the different species of foraminifera into specific layers within those sediments and the clear progression from species to species from layer to layer. This separation cannot be accomplished by sorting, as there are different density forams within each layer that span the densities of forams between layers, and the density of forams is different from the density of the sediments, some of which are very slow to settle in water. Thus the "flood interpretation" does not explain all the evidence nor does it explain the contradictory evidence of differential settling rates. Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this? Regardless, this thread is not about the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Whether evolution is based on empirical observation or mere interpretation has yet to be debated. There's no debate. Evolution is accepted as consensus science because of the vast weight of evidence in its favor; evidence that necessitated the conclusion of evolution.
However, natural selection is not evidence for the Theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution is that natural selection and random mutation are responsible for the history and diversity of species on Earth; as such, the observation that natural selection and random mutation give rise to new morphology and new species is, indeed, evidence for the theory of evolution.
Science is based on observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon. The physical evidence is observable; the tests we perform on that evidence are repeatable. The study of evolution is science by any definition.
Evidence does not speak for itself. There's such a vast weight of evidence that, indeed, it does almost speak for itself. Evidence, however, does not support an infinite variety of interpretations. The scientific interpretation of that evidence is the evolutionary model.
The question is which model best explains the evidence available. Indeed. But there is no question - evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence we have available. And arriving at the best explanation - of any phenomenon - is definitely science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City_on_a_Hill Junior Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
There's no debate. Evolution is accepted as consensus science because of the vast weight of evidence in its favor; evidence that necessitated the conclusion of evolution. This sites is called Creation versus evolution. If there is no debate, I hardly think the forum would exist. Do you see any forums that debate on whether or not Mars exists.
The theory of evolution is that natural selection and random mutation are responsible for the history and diversity of species on Earth; as such, the observation that natural selection and random mutation give rise to new morphology and new species is, indeed, evidence for the theory of evolution. Natural selection can only select from existing traits, not create new ones. Natural selection does not lead to the kind of evolution which would allow an uni-cellular organism to evolve into man over billions of years. Furthermore, despite the fact that almost all mutations are harmful, mutations cannot produce new traits if the potential for variation did not exist. Slight modifications can only go so far. For example, no mutations or any series of mutations will ever produce legs in a legless creature or produce legs from fins.
The physical evidence is observable; the tests we perform on that evidence are repeatable. The study of evolution is science by any definition. The alleged EVIDENCE is observable. But do you have a time machine? Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man?
There's such a vast weight of evidence that, indeed, it does almost speak for itself. Evidence, however, does not support an infinite variety of interpretations. The scientific interpretation of that evidence is the evolutionary model. "almost" is the operative word. when dealing with the past, assumptions must be made for the evidence to support a specific model.
Indeed. But there is no question - evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence we have available. And arriving at the best explanation - of any phenomenon - is definitely science. If there IS no question, there wouldn't be a controversy today. Saying that there is no question that evolution is the best explanation when there is a controversy, even with evolution being taught in classrooms, is pretty arrogant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
If there is no debate there's no debate among biologists that evolution happens, and that natural selection plus random variation are responsible. the debate is between the scientists and the creationists. And it only exists because creationists repeat the same mantras over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted.
Natural selection can only select from existing traits, not create new ones wow! really!!??if you'll read closely, crash said crash writes:
he did not say "only natural selection". natural selection and random mutation it is the random mutations that create the new traits. mutations cannot produce new traits if the potential for variation did not exist
what do you think a mutation is? take the line AAACCCGGGTTT. a mutation might make it AAACCCTTTGGG. You now have two variants.mutations create variations. as to your final point (i'm not even going to touch on the past observations, other's are handling that quite well), there is no controversy among biologists, except for the odd one here and there. I garuntee that you will not find a single biologist who rejects the basics of the ToE [(natural selection + random mutation) / time ] for evidentiary reasons. If they do, it will be over religious reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Dr. A. writes: Evolutionist: This man has been shot. Creationist: How do you know? You weren't there. A bit of an aside, but it demonstrates this point well, is a skit of the same theme written by a fellow member of EvoWiki.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm quote: Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: We accept the existence of many things that we do not, or cannot, see directly based on evidence. You may have noticed, I was the first to respond to your OP and I responded to this very point. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Forams generally live in deep sea levels. I can't imagine them being deposited by the flood. Where were the fossils found? Which layers? Do you have an article that elaborates on this? Forams live in all depths, surface to bottom. They are used to correlate zones in the oil-producing formations in South Louisiana to at least four miles deep, to my own work-related knowledge. Bolivina mexicana, for instance, occurs at about 15,000 feet deep at Rayne, Louisiana. Other species occur in other strata up to near-surface. Foraminifera is an overview - I can't seem to find the Gulf Coast correlation chart that I once had though. I Googled in before, so surely it's out there. Or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City on a Hill writes: Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man? Yes. See my post here. Edited by Doddy, : link Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City_on_a_Hill Junior Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
there's no debate among biologists that evolution happens, and that natural selection plus random variation are responsible. the debate is between the scientists and the creationists. And it only exists because creationists repeat the same mantras over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted. With evolution taught universally in America, and with bias towards creationists in higher education and in the field, what do you expect? And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution
wow! really!!?? if you'll read closely, crash said crash writes: natural selection and random mutation he did not say "only natural selection".it is the random mutations that create the new traits. If you've read on just a little further....
what do you think a mutation is? take the line AAACCCGGGTTT. a mutation might make it AAACCCTTTGGG. You now have two variants. mutations create variations. I did not say mutations cannot create new variation. I said mutations cannot lead to new traits when the potential for variance did not exist before. You will never see mutations producing a leg in a legless creature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The big foram chart - but it only goes back 164 million years:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf Added by edit: Bol. mex is the oldest Chattian index fossil.... Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given. Edited by Coragyps, : kant spel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
with bias towards creationists in higher education and in the field i don't think this is what you meant to say.
I said mutations cannot lead to new traits when the potential for variance did not exist before
I read that. It's nonsensical. mutations are variations. if you have mutations happening, you have variation being created. what you're stating is nonsense. and:
You will never see mutations producing a leg in a legless creature.
why not? we'll be looking for evidence, not assertions.
And there are many creationist scientists and many more who question evolution
give us the names of some, if you don't mind. also, how many question evolution over evidentiary reasons, and not for religious/faith reasons? everyone I'm aware of who's a biologist who questions evolution does so for faith/religious reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: And not one of them understands either the theory of evolution or the science that supports it. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City_on_a_Hill Junior Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 15 Joined: |
We accept the existence of many things that we do not, or cannot, see directly based on evidence. You may have noticed, I was the first to respond to your OP and I responded to this very point. Of course we do, such as black holes, gravity, etc. Nevertheless, the general theory of evolution is not observable, testable OR repeatable. The composition of the Earth, however, can be concluded by the observation of the transmission of waves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City on a hill writes: ...and many more who question evolution If the scientists are doing their job right, they should be questioning evolution every day. Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024