|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky
Cause not all birds fly, and not all flying animals are birds.
fish as things in the sea
Cause not everything in the sea is a fish.
animals as things on the land
Cause animals don't exist only on land.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time.
Yes, cause science is best when its really really really vague and inaccurate.
I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful."
It allows us to classify living organisms and show how they are related to each other. Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Vashgun
My problem with accepting a definition as broad as: change over time or something akin to that is that it doesn't reflect the true colossal nature of the theory. Properly speaking you need to define the type of change involved - here we use hereditary genetic change or change in hereditary traits (to differentiate it from change in size etc), and we specify change in breeding populations, species. The problem with getting more specific is that it gets much more cumbersome in the process. See Message 158 for different levels.
Evolutionist: Evolution is change in species over time. Me (creationist): I agree Of course. The argument with creationists is not with evolution per se but with the issue of common ancestors (between which species and how far back).
Message 161 "Evolution has been taking place since life arose."
Nice wording. What about when life was created by a creator and "evolution" is just a variation within a kind. That's the issue of common ancestors again eh? Please do visit Problems of a different "Kind" and help us define kind though. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky Cause not all birds fly, and not all flying animals are birds. If it can fly it is a bird.
fish as things in the sea Cause not everything in the sea is a fish. I disagree.
animals as things on the land Cause animals don't exist only on land. I disagree.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. Yes, cause science is best when its really really really vague and inaccurate. You should invest in tee shirts reading: Science is life.
I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful." It allows us to classify living organisms and show how they are related to each other. I still don't see how it's useful in life. I guess if you want a background for trying to explain how things evolved from each other...you would need something like this. Otherwise, it's relatively useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
If evolution were really true, then it wouldn't be hard at all to "define" it. But since it's merely a theory that exists in the imaginations of men, then its definition will be as numerous and varied as each individual imagination.
Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wow, you are a really hardcore literalist. I think we would be hard pressed to find other creationists past or present on the forum who would argue from the position that bats are birds and whales are fish. I think you would probably have trouble finding anyone else anywhere who would argue that animals exist only on the land.
I guess if you want a background for trying to explain how things evolved from each other...you would need something like this. Otherwise, it's relatively useless. Haven't you heard, its how rapacious capitalists keep score on how many species they drive to extinction. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Refpunk
If evolution were really true, then it wouldn't be hard at all to "define" it. This thread is not about the definition of evolution, but about the definition of the theory of evolution. A small distinction.
But since it's merely a theory that exists in the imaginations of men,... This is so for all sciences not just evolution, but we are also talking about a scientific theory based on evidence and not merely a hypothetical concept ... If you want to discuss either one of these elements further I suggest you open a new thread on the topic -- these are both off topic to this thread. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy. ps - type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If it can fly it is a bird. None of this post is about the definition of the theory of evolution, it is off topic. If you want to discuss this further please open a new topic on it. I'm sure you'll find many happy participants. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
they started it dad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
If evolution were really true, then it wouldn't be hard at all to "define" it. But since it's merely a theory that exists in the imaginations of men, then its definition will be as numerous and varied as each individual imagination. Did you mean evolution or the existence and definition of the Abrahamic God? "Evolution" of many different sorts, including biological, is a well observed phenomenon. If you meant "the theory of (biological) evolution", then do feel free to start a thread explaining your comment on it. Arguably, all scientific theories exist only in the "imaginations" or minds of men and women. I doubt if other animals go in for them! This thread is about defining the theory, not about what we think of it. P.S. Welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Refpunk Member (Idle past 6080 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Thank you for welcoming me to the fray.
If there were evidence, then it would no longer be a theory, but a fact. But since the "evidence" consists men looking at fossils, skulls and bones and imagining what they could be and how they got that way, then again, it's just a theory as you said, not a fact. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If there were evidence, then it would no longer be a theory, but a fact. That's not really how it works. Theories don't graduate into facts. Theories explain facts. Theories, in a way, are made out of facts. That's why we have things like the germ theory of disease, which explains the fact that diseases are caused by germs. Or the theory of gravity, which explains the fact that gravity attracts massive objects together. Or the theory of evolution, one of the best-supported theories in all of science, which explains the fact that creatures evolve by random mutation and natural selection acting on the genetics of populations. See?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We are still going off-topic here , but we can start with just focusing on what a scientific theory is:
If there were evidence, then it would no longer be a theory, but a fact. This is a common misconception on the part of the general public, due in part to confusing {scientific theory} with {idea}.
The scientific theory definition is #1, while the common definition is either #4 or #6. Notice the significant difference is that the scientific theory explains known facts or phenomena (existing evidence), has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The Theory of Evolution fits this definition. In science (all sciences) no theory is proven, rather they are tested for validity based on predictions. Those that fail the tests are invalidated (falsified), but those that pass the tests are then subject to further testing. This means one can never consider a theory proven, just validated by repeated testing. The more the theory is tested and validated the stronger is the evidence that the theory is correct, but it is never considered proven.
But since the "evidence" consists men looking at fossils, skulls and bones and imagining what they could be and how they got that way, then again, it's just a theory as you said, not a fact. Let's take this to the Evolution is not science. Note that Message 11 discusses the relevance of evidence to theory and the validation of the theory (rather than "proof"). Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Refpunk writes: If there were evidence, then it would no longer be a theory, but a fact. As the others have said, this isn't the case. This particular claim is one Answers in Genesis's list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use quote: We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Instead of the "Theory of Evolution" it should be called the hypothesis of evolution.
The HOE. I like the bandy of words here at evc, like
"Evolution" of many different sorts, including biological, is a well observed phenomenon. yeah, it is. But not the HOE. Nor is common descent scientific, so to pertain to this thread any mechanism for the HOE or hypothesis of the HOE should be stricken from the definition of "evolution"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Nor is common descent scientific. Actually, it is. By assuming common descent, one can predict that various phenomena should be observable. If these phenomena are not observed, then, in the language of science, we would have falsifications of common descent. If the predicted phenomena are observed, then these, in the language of science, would count as verifications. As it turns out, many of the predicted phenomena are observed, just as predicted by the hypothesis of common descent. So, common descent has been verified according to the standard hypothesis-prediction-observation-confirmation model of science. In fact, common descent is an excellent example of a confirmed scientific theory under the now classical model of what science is and how it works. In fact, getting back to the OP, I would say that common descent now ranks as a fact, and that the theory of evolution is the theory (or theories) that explain how this happens. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024