Why Evolution is science

The fact is that we have distinctly different creatures on this planet, yes, we are all made up of atoms and most creatures have common features such as eyes, ears and skin but we observe that they're different for example a dog and a fish. Now logic would conclude that those creatures had a common ancestor meaning that the fish gave rise to various species of fish if you would like. Just like we have variations of birds, cats and dogs, we have variations of humans to a lesser extent. This reveals to me a common designer, that seems logical to me. Coming back to your post, on what basis do you believe that creature x evolved into creature y (x and y denoting two different creatures) when we simply cannot observe the changes since they happened over millions and millions of years according to Evolution theory? Consider that certain assumptions not based on science have been made in order that evolution seem more plausible.

Welcome to the fray, Oliver. But before they were birds they were dinosaurs - you are only looking at the current result and not the process. Archaeopteryx is part of the lineage of transition. Doesn't happen that way, this is a common creationist misconception of evolution, and not what the science says. Macroevolution is the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes, each one a step that of itself is not remarkable: how many pennies does it take to make a thousand dollars? When does the thousand dollars "appear" in the bank account?Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:andClick on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"thas the quick course.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

Hello again, Oliver.Actually, in your original post you claim: The point that people are trying to make (including me) is that this is incorrect. According the widely recognized standards of what is and is not science, the theory of evolution does count as science.Just to try to keep things from veering off before we adequately address the original points.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Well you're assuming that the Egyptians built them, there's a real difference here. Now consider that maybe giants built those pyramids even before the Egyptians were around. A bible verse mentions that 'there were giants on the Earth in those days'. Now if I'm totally off-track here remember that the Evolution theory is based on wild figures of millions of years which we cannot even comprehend, which are in fact inferential. We're talking thousands of years which is far easier to comprehend and doesn't require mental gymnastics. Must just add that those millions of years are based largely on circular reasoning for example the rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks.

Again, the topic is not whether the theory of evolution is correct, or whether or not there are competing theories of the history of life. The topic is whether the theory of evolution is science.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Hi ChiropteraThats perfectly agreeable, it's just that so many claim Evolution to be scientific fact and I think that the majority of evolutionists would disagree with your post. I will add that I like Science, heck!, it certainly has brought us this far.

Yep, it really is easy to stray from the topic. I don't think I have much more to add though so I may move on sometime..

I owuld say that some expansions or caveats to Chiropter's post might be desirable - but there's nothing badly wrong with it.In contrast you are using a definition of "macro-evolution" that appears to be your own invention (without even mentioning that fact) and not explaining why your demand for direct observation is a requirement of science.

quote:

---

...it's just that so many claim Evolution to be scientific fact and I think that the majority of evolutionists would disagree with your post.

---

I'm not sure what you think that the majority of evolutionists would disagree with. The theory of evolution is testable according to the meaning of "testable" that science uses. The theory of evolution is observable according to the meaning of "observable" that science uses.Furthermore, even though this is not quite on topic, let me add that evolution is a "scientific fact", at least as much as anything can be called a "scientific fact". Multiple lines of evidence, in many different fields of science, using very different methods of investigation, all give a remarkably consistent picture of the history of life on earth. The evidence is plentiful and unambiguous enough that it is difficult to imagine that life did not evolve from a common ancestor.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Hi razdHow do you know that birds were once dinosaurs? Do you accept this because science tells you so?Remeber, that was millions of years ago so how does anyone know?

Oliver,Can you tell me what these are?:

note: the last is an artist rendition, and thus fur length and color and the fullness of the body are not necessarily valid, and are probably influenced by knowing what the descendants look like.Would you say that whatever they are, that the animals that descended from them will always be of that group of animals?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : note

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

That is your worldview chiroptera but I certainly don't subscribe to it. It is very easy and convenient to accept Evolution in a world that does not want a God, that's the short of it but since we cannot prove Gods existence or non-existence I must mention that when I see the beauty in this world in contrast to the suffering of creatures and mankind I admit that I have to believe in God. Scientists can theorise, hypothesize and extrapolate but man inherently makes mistakes, who would doubt that? Now who am I to question Evolution when I have aboslutely no qualifications on the matter, on the other hand Evolution is neither fact since we absolutely cannot know for sure, regardless of ones knowledge on the subject. Those 'millions' of years are impossible to account for and we don't even know how it is that we are living on this planet but please, Evolution is not Scientific fact! That I know for sure.

quote:

---

...I may move on sometime.

---

Well, when you do move on, I invite you to move onto some of the other threads, where it might be fruitful to discuss some of your other claims.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

I'm off now, back soon!I've enjoyed the forum

quote:

---

Those 'millions' of years are impossible to account for and we don't even know how it is that we are living on this planet but please, Evolution is not Scientific fact! That I know for sure.

---

Lots o' threads around here on how we can, in fact, account for those million of years, Oliver, if you are interesting in finding out how. The secret is that the past leaves evidence in the present, and not all possible pasts are consistent with what we know about the present. Go into the Geology Forum, for example, and you will find out why we know, as a fact, that there was no global flood just a few thousand years ago. If there was, it would have left pretty definite traces, but the expected traces have never been found.If you have more to say about what makes something scientific vs. not scientific, then this is the thread for it. Otherwise, we have a lot of folks around here who would like the chance to discuss these other issues with you (or anyone else, for that matter).Wonderful place, this board. Be carefull. It can get addicting.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely