Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 136 of 305 (428800)
10-17-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
10-17-2007 2:46 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
NosyNed writes:
You have the occurrence of evolution mixed up with the explanatory model (the theory). For a long time before Darwin it had been obvious that life on Earth had changed forms over time (and that it was a pretty long time as well.) Naturalists could see from the very limited number of fossils found already that current life had not always been on the planet. They could also see that there had been a succession of different sets of critters on Earth.
I don't think I have it mixed up. As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection. The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin and can in fact be considered on its own. It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.
Darwin's theory is one explanation of how evolution PROCEEDS (Through natural selection), and even if it was proven wrong, the theory of evolution would still remain exactly as it was.
That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing. xD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2007 2:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Brad McFall, posted 10-17-2007 6:52 PM Medis has replied
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 10-17-2007 7:17 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2007 7:18 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2007 7:28 PM Medis has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 137 of 305 (428833)
10-17-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Medis
10-17-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
quote:
That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing.
Well, this is true historically for sure, but it seems to me that with the same logic one could approach this rationally, alternatively, in which case it matters what would be left IF it was proven "wrong". The reason it seems to me that creationism is worthwhille to science is becuase it provides an external standpoint from which to ask what would be left if "natural selection evolution" (what my grandfather believed in etc) did not exist. Sure there could still be evolution of free path length taxongeny if the modern synthesis were to be the phologistn of a new twist on the gist of nanotechnology of tommarrow, but such an imagined future may not be against creation science itself, and it seems not even to be against the sayings of YECS which site the very best of science men of the past who believed in God etc. If the reason a creationist is trying to "proove" Evolution false/wrong(regardless of the version) is because of social effects of people (like my Grandfather etc)and they end up getting rid of Darwinian evolution but still have something other than anytime miracles but have something THEN (now) recognized, this like converting in part when not in whole, is always good. Conviction is different than adequation. Creationism is inadequate in this so far but that is not what you pro/supposed.
quote:
Darwin's theory is one explanation of how evolution PROCEEDS (Through natural selection), and even if it was proven wrong, the theory of evolution would still remain exactly as it was.
Natural Selection is really only a part of how Darwin influenced Biology and all of his influences actually would need to be considered while one contemplates if he actually proposed a totally different kind of causality than had been extant in science before his particular involution of events. I think proceeding to t discuss evolutionary theory like this is counter productive but hey, that is just me. Read what niche constructors have to say about the difference between "standard evolutionary theory" and that under regimes of deposed ecosystem engineering.
quote:
I don't think I have it mixed up. As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection.
Yes, it is important but no one really does it because any reciprocal cause and effect will contain empirical statements that have not yet been tested while they will point outside themselves to regions some will just say are "off limits" and the math is not here to turn the cone of diversity into the next ladder of being, with or without God.
quote:
The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin and can in fact be considered on its own.
I simply find the comparisons of forms to really make it appear like changes between forms were possible and on an extended examination it appeared logically to me that where Kant wrote of four figure subtility (and bounds to form-making) actually pertains to what appear to be lineages of creatures or kinds of them disjuncted but as this was not recorded between an aspect and a horizon by Bertrand Russell and the maths were not developed by anyone else so capable, no one has seen how to use math beyond the limits morphogeny imposes on taxogeny (Croizat's terms). Thus, I proceed rationally rather than historically when making this contigencey appear to have been adumbrated.
quote:
It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.
OK
Edited by Brad McFall, : BB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 4:48 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:25 AM Brad McFall has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 138 of 305 (428838)
10-17-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Medis
10-17-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
Malangyar writes:
I don't think I have it mixed up.
No, you still have it mixed up, which is clear when you say this:
The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin...
The realization that evolution had taken place was around before Darwin (I wouldn't necessarily say "long before Darwin"), but there was no theory of the causes behind evolution. What Darwin introduced that was new was a theory of how evolution happened, which he said was by means of descent with modification and natural selection.
So when you go on to say:
...and can in fact be considered on its own. It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.
This is clearly wrong. That evolution has occurred and is occurring is not considered a theory, but an actual fact. It can even be observed in real time using bacterial experiments.
As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection.
Natural selection is usually just called "natural selection" and not "the theory of natural selection." I suppose there might be some contexts in which it might make sense to call it a theory, but I can't think of any offhand. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that is part and parcel of evolution, and it definitely is not a competing theory with evolution.
That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing.
This, too, is wrong. Since natural selection is a key component of evolutionary theory, proving that it doesn't happen would have to be considered a serious blow to evolutionary theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 4:48 PM Medis has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 139 of 305 (428840)
10-17-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Medis
10-17-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.
A theory with no mechanism is no theory at all. It doesn't explain anything. The "theory of evolution" you're talking about is just the idea of evolution, that more complex or advanced forms develop from simpler ones, and it's not a scientific theory of any kind, it's just an idea about things.
The scientific theory of evolution includes random mutation and natural selection, as Darwin formulated, and those two mechanisms can't be extracted from the theory. They essentially are the theory, the core of it at least (there's been some additional mechanisms uncovered, like genetic drift), and without them there's no such thing as the scientific theory of evolution.
That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong.
The reason why it's such a waste of time to try to disprove natural selection is because natural selection is so obviously, undeniably correct. Organisms are selected by nature. That's a fact that simply can't be denied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 4:48 PM Medis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-17-2007 11:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 305 (428841)
10-17-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Medis
10-17-2007 2:21 PM


Oh. I always thought the theory of evolution was thought up BEFORE Darwin and that Darwin was only the guy trying to explain how it happened. (Using natural selection)
How it happened is the theory of evolution. That it happened is the fact that the theory of evolution attempts to explain.
(That it happened is also, in certain epistemological senses, a theory, but when we talk about "the theory of evolution", we mean the explanation of how it happened.)
In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that evolution was around before Darwin, and that his father even wrote poems about it.
His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, in fact. A fascinating person. You can read about him and his circle in Jenny Uglow's book The Lunar Men, which I thoroughly recomend to anyone who likes that sort of thing.
Well I was only taking Dr Adequate's statement...
...to its logical conclusion. I personally think it's rather obvious that observations of, say cells, in artificial conditions are a great aid in knowing what happens or has happened in nature. But, correct me if I'm wrong...
You're slightly wrong. Remember, I said "what happened in nature", not "what happens in nature".
Let me give you an example. Suppose that scientists, in their labs, could artificially, experimentally, produce a reptile-bird intermediate. Would that have any bearing, really, on the question of whether in fact evolution naturally produced such a thing umpteen-million years ago?
No --- for that we have to go to observations of the fossil record, molecular phylogeny, or what-have-you.
Hmm, maybe I haven't been accurate enough. What I was trying to say is that it's not possible to test the fossils in the same way most testing is done in physics or chemistry. For example, as Modulus said, testing the boundary conditions of macroevolution. If you wanted to find out at what temperature water boils you could go into the lab and heat it up until it boiled. And do it again and again until you found a precise temperature. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this sort experimentation is possible with macroevolution.
But you can, for example, go and look at, for example, the fossils of Archaeopteryx "again and again". A repeated experiment under artificial conditions isn't (per se) better than an observation of the natural world that you can repeat as often as you like.
BUT as far as I understand from all of you, pretty much any kind of experiment will do. A geological excavation or an observation of a planet in orbit has just as much scientific value as a repeatable experiment done in the lab. If this is true, then I'd like some sort of source for it.
A source?
Look, scientists do in fact evidence their theories by, for example, observing the orbits of planets. If you want a source saying that the theory of gravity is scientific, who would you trust if you don't trust scientists?
In the same way, I could find you a zillion scientists to say that evolution is scientific, but if you doubt them, to whom else can I turn as witnesses?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 2:21 PM Medis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 305 (428844)
10-17-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Medis
10-17-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
I don't think I have it mixed up. As far as I've understood, it's important to distinguish between the theory of evolution, and the theory of natural selection. The theory of evolution has been around long before Darwin and can in fact be considered on its own. It doesn't say HOW it occurs, but THAT it occurs.
In certain ways, it would make more sense if people did use words like this, but they don't. When scientists talk about the "theory of evolution", they mean how it happened --- natural selection, reproduction, sexual recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and so forth.
Unfortunately it is given to neither you nor me to change the English language.
Hence, the following is not quite correct in its implications ---
That's why it's such a waste of time for creationists to try to prove natural selection wrong. Even IF they proved it wrong, evolution would still be standing. xD
Yes, in such a case evolution would still be standing. But the theory of evolution would be so much waste paper.
And it might help creationists a little bit, since if there was no conceivable way in which evolution could have occurred, this would help them to cast doubt on the proposition that it has occurred.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 4:48 PM Medis has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 142 of 305 (428847)
10-17-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
10-17-2007 2:46 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
Oops did it again: Wallace and Darwin independently came up with the theory of change through imperfect replication and selection. Poor Wallace -- a day late and a dollar short.
I dunno how late or short he was. Wallace had his paper written and sent it to Darwin who'd been dillydallying for decades. Kinda kicked the old man into high gear.
Wallace's work, though significantly less controversial, was extraordinarily well documented. It just happened to be nearly completely about beetles.
The jump from beetles to all of life was an obvious one, but one that stirred up the thumpers.
Perhaps if it was "Wallacism" we were talking about, there wouldn't be such a feverent backlash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 10-17-2007 2:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 143 of 305 (428880)
10-17-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
10-17-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
The scientific theory of evolution includes random mutation and natural selection, as Darwin formulated....
I just want to jump in here and make a small correction. Darwin did not theorize or propose the 'mutation' aspect - that came much later. But Crashfrog is absolutely correct in that the modern theory is built on Darwin and that natural selection coupled with random mutation is the main cause of evolutionary change.
...and those two mechanisms can't be extracted from the theory
Absolutely correct. The theory of how evolution happens is natural selection/random mutation (which is simply naturally ocurring changes at the genetic level, selected). Evolutionary theory since 1859, and since the genetical theory was established in the 1930s and 40s, is built on the foundation of natural selection, if it were to ever be refuted the whole theory is in the toilet.
They essentially are the theory, the core of it at least (there's been some additional mechanisms uncovered, like genetic drift), and without them there's no such thing as the scientific theory of evolution.
Absolutely correct.
The reason why it's such a waste of time to try to disprove natural selection is because natural selection is so obviously, undeniably correct. Organisms are selected by nature. That's a fact that simply can't be denied.
I have refuted natural selection in my forth coming paper. The pages have already been written. I have even withheld these pages from my proof readers for fear of the unthinkable from happening. Any grammatical errors will be corrected after publication to occur at the end of this year.
I am glad that we have established the importance of natural selection.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 10-17-2007 7:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2007 12:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2007 3:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 10-18-2007 3:45 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 305 (428882)
10-18-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
10-17-2007 11:49 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
Darwin did not theorize or propose the 'mutation' aspect - that came much later.
Darwin certainly didn't propose "mutation" as we now understand it - a heritable change in genetic molecules - but the recognition that individuals varied amongst each other and even from their ancestors was very much a part of evolution as Darwin developed it.
I have refuted natural selection in my forth coming paper.
...right. Hopefully, your paper will be able to explain why, if there's no natural selection, we see so many organisms around us being naturally selected.
I have even withheld these pages from my proof readers for fear of the unthinkable from happening.
What happening, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-17-2007 11:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2007 3:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 145 of 305 (428905)
10-18-2007 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
10-17-2007 11:49 PM


Re: Explaining Evolution
Any grammatical errors will be corrected after publication to occur at the end of this year.
And where is it going to be published?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-17-2007 11:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 146 of 305 (428906)
10-18-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
10-18-2007 12:00 AM


Re: Explaining Evolution
What happening, exactly?
I assumed the worst would be people pointing out flawed and bogus reasoning, but maybe he is worried about the assassination squads that the evil atheist conspiracy maintains to suppress alternative theories to evolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2007 12:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 147 of 305 (428908)
10-18-2007 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
10-17-2007 11:49 PM


Ray Martinez Destoys Modern Biology....
Ray Martinez aka CFO writes:
I have refuted natural selection in my forth coming paper. The pages have already been written. I have even withheld these pages from my proof readers for fear of the unthinkable from happening. Any grammatical errors will be corrected after publication to occur at the end of this year.
Wow! All of your bluster about Crashfrog being delusional and now you feel that you have a forthcoming landmark paper to overturn modern biology, zoology, paleontology, etc. on its ear !?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-17-2007 11:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Quetzal, posted 10-18-2007 9:14 AM iceage has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 148 of 305 (428925)
10-18-2007 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Medis
10-17-2007 2:21 PM


Malangyar writes:
Annafan writes:
So the conclusion is you indeed reject them because, just like (macro)evolution, you argue they can not be tested in the lab.
No. I never said I rejected evolution or that it couldn't be tested in a lab. I asked a QUESTION about the testing of evolution, and if you'd go back and read the first sentence of the first post that I made, you might be able to see this.
Annafan writes:
Did you ever take the time to systematically evaluate all scientific knowledge, to be sure that you only accepted science entirely based on laboratory experiments?
No. (?)
Annafan writes:
Or is there maybe another reason why you single out evolutionary theory?
I'm not deliberately "singling out" anything, but this topic happens to be about evolution and science and I happen to have come here to discuss science and the scientific method from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Is this okay with you, or are you so prejudiced that you need to firmly put me in a box with "all the rest" in order to establish your superiority? Why don't you just answer my questions about evolution instead of treating me like a lunatic? If this is too much to ask then please don't waste my time with any more of your petty nitpicking.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I will admit that experience with the 'typical' new poster asking/asserting stuff like this has conditioned some of us into a certain type of reaction.
Still, the questions are in the first place supposed to be helpful, as to make you think a bit further about your own question. When I would ask myself the same question about evolution being science or not, I would first of all find it very odd that a field of investigation that has been around for almost 200 years now, and has gone through the hands of some of the brightest people ever known, could still turn out to be "not legitimate science after all". Even if I would have this hunch that there is something wrong, I would certainly argue from a position that I was probably missing something. To me, the way you phrased your first post indicated that you dismissed this all too easily. It sounded more like a statement than an inquiry. Your tone has definitely changed somewhat since then, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Medis, posted 10-17-2007 2:21 PM Medis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Medis, posted 10-18-2007 6:38 AM Annafan has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 149 of 305 (428935)
10-18-2007 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Brad McFall
10-17-2007 6:52 PM


Re: Explaining evolution; qualified
Oh this is great. Really this is great because it just goes to show that I'm not the only one who can learn something in this debate.
Now of course I made a mistake, and that mistake was that I left out the definition of evolution. Because that's really where we disagree, what is the TRUE definition of evolution? Actually it happens that we're both right. Is it true that the modern definition of evolution encompasses natural selection? Yes, a quick look at one definition and we see it:
evolution: "theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits." (From MSN Encarta)
Okay so that settles it right? NO, because that's where a lot of you fail to understand my point. EVEN THOUGH natural selection today is seen as an integral part of evolution, EVOLUTION CAN STILL EXIST WITHOUT IT! Natural selection is just a theory of how it occurs. In fact, YOU CAN SIMPLIFY the definition of evolution, and end up with something like:
"evolution is the development, through various stages, of one living organism into another living organism not at all like it"
So what's the difference between the two definitions? Well, the latter one is simply a definition of evolution by its effects, not how those effects came about. It basically cuts away all the other stuff one might argue about (Such as natural selection) and gets right to the core of the problem, the effects of evolution.
Does this mean that the latter is the RIGHT definition of evolution? No, of course not. Today's evolution encompasses vast amounts of other material and if you ask any person he'd probably choose the first definition over the latter exactly because evolution has come to mean not only the effects, but also how those effects came to be.
This doesn't make the second definition wrong though. It's just a much simplified definition of evolution by its effects and it can in fact be proven as a scientific theory without ever mentioning natural selection.
Brad McFall writes:
Well, this is true historically for sure, but it seems to me that with the same logic one could approach this rationally, alternatively, in which case it matters what would be left IF it was proven "wrong".
Even if one explanation of how the effects of evolution occurred was proven wrong, the effects would still be there.
So evolution, by its most simplified definition, would still be standing.
Brad McFall writes:
Yes, it is important but no one really does it because any reciprocal cause and effect will contain empirical statements that have not yet been tested while they will point outside themselves to regions some will just say are "off limits" and the math is not here to turn the cone of diversity into the next ladder of being, with or without God.
No, I think this is wrong. I don't think it has any negative influence on the theory of evolution to argue by a simplified definition of it. In fact you save yourself a lot of trouble because you don't have to go into ANOTHER proof, for example a proof of natural selection.
Percy writes:
The realization that evolution had taken place was around before Darwin (I wouldn't necessarily say "long before Darwin"), but there was no theory of the causes behind evolution. What Darwin introduced that was new was a theory of how evolution happened, which he said was by means of descent with modification and natural selection.
Exactly. And I think forty years is a long time. (Maybe not by evolutionary standards? Haha)
Percy writes:
This is clearly wrong. That evolution has occurred and is occurring is not considered a theory, but an actual fact. It can even be observed in real time using bacterial experiments.
No, in fact it isn't. And you're talking about microevolution here right? Let me get this straight, I'm always talking about macroevolution, because that's where most creationists have a problem. You might say microevolution proves macroevolution, but creationists won't accept that.
Percy writes:
Natural selection is usually just called "natural selection" and not "the theory of natural selection." I suppose there might be some contexts in which it might make sense to call it a theory, but I can't think of any offhand. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that is part and parcel of evolution, and it definitely is not a competing theory with evolution.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS A COMPETING THEORY WITH EVOLUTION! I said it was an explanation of how evolution OCCURRED. Which is absolutely 100% true especially from a scientific viewpoint! And to say that it is not a theory is simply absurd! Of course it is a theory, just like magnetism, atomic structures, gravity and electricity.
One such as you should know that science doesn't proceed by showing that theories are irrefutably true (Fact). It proceeds by showing, through repeated testing, that they're NOT FALSE.
Evolution just happens to be a theory which is so well founded that most scientists see it as fact. Even though it is, essentially, a theory just like gravity. I mean, gravity is also, essentially, a theory. It's just so well founded by repeated testing and observation all over the globe that it is seen as fact.
And you don't even have to believe me, believe this post of the month from the Talk.Origins archive: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: November 2005
But you know what I don't really think you're reading this. You don't care what I say, you're just skipping over it and pushing the reply button so you can have the last word. Because if you were really reading this with an open mind, you would have realised that I never said, in the last post, or any other post, that natural selection was a competing theory with the theory of evolution. In fact I explained that it was an explanation of how evolution proceeds.
You just misunderstood me because you wanted me to be wrong. So please start reading my posts and stop treating this as some sort of battle.
Percy writes:
This, too, is wrong. Since natural selection is a key component of evolutionary theory, proving that it doesn't happen would have to be considered a serious blow to evolutionary theory.
No, Percy, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Natural selection is one explanation of how evolution occurred and even if it was proven wrong evolution (As in my latter definition) would still be standing. I'm not saying this just so I can have an opposite opinion of yours, I'm saying it because it's the truth. Think about it.
crashfrog writes:
A theory with no mechanism is no theory at all. It doesn't explain anything. The "theory of evolution" you're talking about is just the idea of evolution, that more complex or advanced forms develop from simpler ones, and it's not a scientific theory of any kind, it's just an idea about things.
The scientific theory of evolution includes random mutation and natural selection, as Darwin formulated, and those two mechanisms can't be extracted from the theory. They essentially are the theory, the core of it at least (there's been some additional mechanisms uncovered, like genetic drift), and without them there's no such thing as the scientific theory of evolution.
Actually there is. All you have to assert is that a living organism always comes from at least one living (parent) organism. That's all. Of course, a further explanation would be natural selection, but even if that was proven wrong, you would still have evolution standing. (Notice, I'm not saying natural selection is wrong, I'm just saying you could still argue for evolution even though natural selection WAS wrong)
crashfrog writes:
That's a fact that simply can't be denied.
Yes, it's a fact as far as you can say something is a fact in science. You and I both know that a theory is always a theory, just like gravity is a theory. It's just so well substantiated that it is perceived as fact. At the end of the day though, it's still a theory.
Dr Adequate writes:
But you can, for example, go and look at, for example, the fossils of Archaeopteryx "again and again". A repeated experiment under artificial conditions isn't (per se) better than an observation of the natural world that you can repeat as often as you like.
But wouldn't the repeated observation of the fossil simply be a repetition of the same experiment again and again? I mean wouldn't it be better to have three experiments under three different conditions than three experiments under the same condition?
Dr Adequate writes:
A source?
Yes please, a source from a scientist or a scientific article saying that observations of nature are just as good experiments as repeated experiments in a lab. (Not trying to annoy you or anything)
Dr Adequate writes:
In certain ways, it would make more sense if people did use words like this, but they don't. When scientists talk about the "theory of evolution", they mean how it happened --- natural selection, reproduction, sexual recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and so forth.
Unfortunately it is given to neither you nor me to change the English language.
Yes of course when the scientific community today talks about evolution they talk about all the theories that have something to do with evolution. But you can, in fact, still simplify that definition and reach something which doesn't include natural selection. All you'd need is the theory that a living organism will always come from another living organism and you're all set.
The best part about all of this is that you don't even have to believe me. Ian Johnston at the Malaspina University-College has written an excellent proof of evolution where he does in fact simplify the case of evolution to its utter core, thereby neatly sidestepping 80% of all the bullshit creationist argument.
Read it here: Error
Thus, all the crap about natural selection being implausible or whatever doesn't matter because evolution would still be standing. It's a giant red herring. In fact if you present this simple proof to creationists you get right to the core of the problem which is: What is science? How does science proceed? Is biology as much a science as physics and chemistry? What kind of logic does science use?
This is why I started out with asking whether or not the testing of evolution (Say, an excavation) could be seen as scientific.
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Brad McFall, posted 10-17-2007 6:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2007 8:38 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 153 by Chiroptera, posted 10-18-2007 9:27 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 154 by Rahvin, posted 10-18-2007 10:03 AM Medis has replied
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 10-18-2007 10:12 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 157 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2007 11:19 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 1:17 PM Medis has replied
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2007 2:07 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 192 by Brad McFall, posted 10-18-2007 6:09 PM Medis has not replied

Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 150 of 305 (428939)
10-18-2007 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Annafan
10-18-2007 5:27 AM


Annafan writes:
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I will admit that experience with the 'typical' new poster asking/asserting stuff like this has conditioned some of us into a certain type of reaction.
Still, the questions are in the first place supposed to be helpful, as to make you think a bit further about your own question. When I would ask myself the same question about evolution being science or not, I would first of all find it very odd that a field of investigation that has been around for almost 200 years now, and has gone through the hands of some of the brightest people ever known, could still turn out to be "not legitimate science after all". Even if I would have this hunch that there is something wrong, I would certainly argue from a position that I was probably missing something. To me, the way you phrased your first post indicated that you dismissed this all too easily. It sounded more like a statement than an inquiry. Your tone has definitely changed somewhat since then, though.
Fair enough. All I'm asking is that people try to assume at least some good faith. I hope this is not too much to ask.
I just came here to find some answers to questions (or statements) about evolution that I've stumbled upon. I guess I COULD just say "Oh well this has been in the hands of scientists for 200 years so it's probably true", but would you be satisfied with that? I'd rather get to the core of the problem and figure out on my own why the purported fallacy isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Annafan, posted 10-18-2007 5:27 AM Annafan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024